On Friday 27 February 2009 05:56:12 Roger Leigh wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 05:28:13PM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > Aptitude has been the recommended (by DDs) package manager > > since Etch was released. It has better dependency resolution, is more > > user-friendly, and is a bit more tunable. > > "Better" dependency resolution is subjective. While it's certainly > cleverer and more complex, aptitude often fails to do the right thing > where the simpler algorithm apt-get uses behaves correctly. Concrete cases please. Preferably in the form of a bug report. I've certainly had to massage aptitude at times, but in those cases apt-get simply said "no, that's not possible". > For example, 'aptitude upgrade' often wants to remove packages where > 'apt-get upgrade' would just keep them back. It offers multiple > solutions to problems, but not the simplest solution of not upgrading > to the current version. You've already indicated that you want to upgrade. Aptitude presents you with options that allow you to do that. It doesn't assume it is smarter than you and suggest "don't do that". This is not a failing, but an advantage of aptitude. > In many cases, the simpler apt-get algorithm for upgrade and > dist-upgrade Does The Right Thing where aptitude does not. I disagree. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.