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

Re: apt-get vs. aptitude





Le 08.10.2013 16:15, Richard Owlett a écrit :
berenger.morel@neutralite.org wrote:


Le 08.10.2013 13:33, Florian Lindner a écrit :
Hello,

Since I'm about to setup a new server using current stable
wheezy, I want to
recheck some of debian knowledge.

What is the prefered tool for installing on the CLI? apt-get or
aptitude? Last
time I read about it, it was aptitude, due to better dependency
checking. What
is the current state? apt-get or aptitude? Does it matter? What
about using
both?

Thanks!

Florian

Both are front-end for dpkg, so there will be no real difference
on the system after using one, the other or both.
I use both without any problem.

The differences between them is that aptitude:
* is slower
* have more built-in features
* have a ncurse interface

The slowness of aptitude should not be noticeable on a fast
computer like a server, so you can probably forgot about that.
Built-in features aptitude have that apt-get *might* (I am not
sure) not have *built-in* (but you can add apt-* stuff to add
them I think) are some tools to support debtags (if installed),
research of solutions when something is broken, and... I do not
know what else :)

The aptitude's ncurse GUI is nice, at least for an end-user like
me. On a server, where I think you probably know what and why to
install/update, I doubt it will be.
But for the end user, it allows to quickly search and find a
package depending on it's name, sorted by either categories or by
debtags.
The problem imho of that interface is that:
* if you have any broken package ( by a modification you put, but
did not validated ) it will be slow as hell ( it will checks
solutions at each move for nothing )
* debtags are only shown as a tree, there is no really good
interface to manage them ( but it is better than nothing )
* if you need multiarch, you will have to brows each package
multiplied by the number of archs you use. Sadly, the interface
did not used a way like the one used for versions for that...

Conclusion:
On a production server, I would use apt-get: faster.
For testing needs, or R&D, I would go for aptitude and use it's
interface to browse packages and find solutions depending on the
current state of the system ( it is easier to check which
dependencies are being installed with aptitude's ncurse GUI than
on a command line ).

Hope it helps.


Don't know if it helps the OP, but it does help me. Thank you.

Nice :)

I'm experimenting with a very lean idiosyncratic install. It sounds
as aptitude will be appropriate for me. Off to read man pages etc ;)

Don't copy me! xD
More seriously, without aptitude, I would probably not be with debian ( probably I would have stayed with windows, that I known better some years ago ), and it is really that tool which allowed me to have fast as lighting computers built from low-price hardware ( but no one that I know could use any of my systems if I am far away ).

You might also be interested by dselect, I have read about it several times, but never took enough time to really discover it.

My first moves when installing a new system: uncheck all ( yes, including basic tools ) checkboxes while installing, booting on the new system, disabling in aptitude the automatic install of recommended stuff, and install only packages that I invoke by myself.

Sometimes I take some fun to also purge all packages ( yes, all of them: go to root entry of aptitude and then press '_' ) to add them back one by one in the preview, marking all packages I do not remove as automatically installed ( so that they'll go away when there will be no reason to keep them ). It's nice to see that Debian still install some tools which are not really needed when you uncheck everything at install time.

Be careful, that way to install a computer is the best one to install broken systems :) but I'll bet that you know that ( it's more a disclaimer for people who could fall on that mail )


Reply to: