Re: aptitude vs apt-get (was ... Re: mount cdrom?)
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Chris Bannister
<cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:05:55AM -0700, Kelly Clowers wrote:
>> I recommend using aptitude for everything. It replaces apt-get and
>> apt-cache, ...
>
> root@tal:~# dpkg -S /usr/bin/apt-get
> apt: /usr/bin/apt-get
>
> root@tal:~# apt-cache policy aptitude
> aptitude:
> Installed: (none)
> Candidate: 0.6.8.1-2
> Version table:
> 0.6.8.1-2 0
> 990 http://ftp.nz.debian.org/debian/ wheezy/main i386 Packages
>
> IOW, I can easily remove aptitude, I wouldn't like to try forcefully
> removing apt.
>
>> aptitude search chess
>
> Mmmm, :)
>
>> Aptitude is the officially recommended tool for command line package
>> management, replacing apt-get.
>
> Where does it say that? If you are talking about the release notes, then
> that seems to vary from release to release and generally refers to which
> tool does the best job of upgrading from one release to the next without
> too many problems.
I swear I saw it on the Aptitude page on the Debian wiki, but I guess
it was somewhere else, because I just looked and it is not.
Oh well. I mean obviously people are free to use what they want, I
just cannot understand why anyone would use apt-* when there is
aptitude. And 90% of the time I use interactive mode, which doesn't
exist *at all* in apt-*, and when I do use the CLI, one command for
installing searching, etc. is more convent than several.
Cheers,
Kelly Clowers
Reply to: