Re: Up-to-date Gnome versions?
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:43:28 -0500, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> said:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
> On 09/21/07 10:46, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 07:39:20AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> On 09/21/07 00:43, Miles Bader wrote:
>>>> Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>>>>> The archives are replete with very valid reasons why people don't
>>>>> trust aptitude.
>>>> Not really. A lot of vague rumors flying about though.
>>> Vague rumors to you, first-hand experience to me.
>>
>> I know you, and many others, have had trouble with aptitude, but I
>> feel its important to point out that aptitude does what one tells it
>> too. Now, one may be unintentionally telling it to do something one
>> doesn't want, but that is another issue.
> "# aptitude upgrade" doesn't mean "remove GNOME, perl and everything
> they depend on".
And that has not happened to me. Seems like if that is hte best
solution aptitude came up with for you, the package state on that
machine was strange; and that would mean surely things will rise up and
bite you at some later point.
If ever aptitude (and not, thankfully, apt, in Sid) try and
delete hug swaths of stuff, it would well behoove you to find out
why -- usually, it is a Sid issue, and goes away after new processing,
or the next upload, or something.
>> Thankfully, we have choice in the matter and can use the
>> package-manager of choice. :)
> This is true.
Now that libapt has gotten the same algorithms aptitude uses,
perhaps apt-get, aptitude, and synaptic behaviour will be closer to
each others than it has been in the past.
manoj
--
Long computations which yield zero are probably all for naught.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: