[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: apt-get/aptitude. Ist it true...

Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On Monday 24 January 2011 19:59:51 peter_someone wrote:
> > ...that since lenny it's safe to mix the two because a. apt-get now
> > handles (or can handle)orphans similarly thanks to autoremove and also
> > uses the same database or better yet, has the same markings for
> > automatically installed vs manually installed?
> IME, not in Lenny, but in Squeeze once it is released. 

You are wrong, and peter_someone was right. Aptitude began using
apt's autoinstall database in version  A later version of
aptitude than that is included in stable already. That was a feature
of the Debian 5.0 release ("lenny") in 2009.

aptitude ( experimental; urgency=low

  * This version merges in the code I wrote in 2005 to support the
    patch against apt to add removal of automatic patches.  aptitude
    should merge its list of "automatic" packages into the global apt
    list when it's run.

 -- Daniel Burrows <dburrows@debian.org>  Fri, 15 Jun 2007 08:53:06 -0700

In reply to your message, peter_someone wrote:
> ah so already maintaining a mixed system (mostly testing) with
> apt-get, i have to wait until after squeeze becomes stable to use
> aptitutde (or until i see an update for the aptitude package :))

No, you've misunderstood what Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote. 
He said it would be in the squeeze release. That necessarily implies it
is already in squeeze now, since squeeze has been frozen for months.

And then in a different thread ("Ubuntu -> LMDE: migrate packages using
`aptitude` alone?"), Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> I think this loses the information on what package as "automatically 
> installed" which can ease upgrades.  I think the easiest way to access that 
> right now is through aptitude, but I know that information was supposed to be 
> stored by APT, at least post-Squeeze.

Did you just repeat back peter_someone's incorrect interpretation of
your incorrect statement about aptitude as the truth? I thought a game
of "telephone" typically needed more than 2 participants to be
interesting. :P

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: