Re: aptitude vs apt-get (was ... Re: mount cdrom?)
On Friday 19 October 2012 16:05:46 Kelly Clowers wrote:
> 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.
"I swear I _saw_ it" - past tense! Perhaps it was there but is not there now.
Aptitude did have some definite advantages over apt- , but they are now much
more level pegging. (And no, I do not want a flame war over "my apt is
better than your apt" .... !) I still use aptitude most of the time, because
I know it better.
> 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.
I agree!
Lisi
Reply to: