Re: apt-get

[Freeman <evenso@worldwidehtml.com>]

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:58:11PM +0200, Javier Barroso wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Andrei Popescu
> <andreimpopescu@gmail.com>wrote:
> 
> > On Lu, 31 mai 10, 10:19:46, Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote:
> > > What's the status?
> > > - aptitude better?
> > > - apt-get better?
> >
> > From the top of my head (assuming you only use aptitude in command-line
> > mode):
> >
> > advantages:
> > + the resolver is more complex and *usually* gets the dependencies
> > better than apt-get
> > + removes automatically installed packages in one go, no need for a
> > separate command
> > + has an interactive dependency resolver even in command-line mode
> > + advanced search patterns
> >
> 
> + has why and why-not command
> + you can play minesweeper  (with curses ui of course) !
> 
> >
> > disadvantages:
> > - lacks 'source' command
> > - might be slower
> > - simple searches are much slower than apt-cache (but apt-cache lacks
> > advanced searches)
> >
> > differences:
> > * safe-upgrade allows package installs
> >

Aptitude-gtk is looking beautiful. Maybe still not fully functional, but
some interesting features and a fantastic GUI.  When in stable, it will
equal a new level of package management.

Tried it in the early version and went back to CLI/curses.

Just upgraded aptitude to unstable in order to install aptitude-gtk
experimental and see how it is doing. 

-- 
Kind Regards,
Freeman

Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. NO (or Linux) is the
answer.