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

Re: apt-get vs. aptitude



Morten Bo Johansen <mbj@spamcop.net> writes:

> On 2013-10-13 Dmitrii Kashin wrote:
>
>> I think that aptitude works quite well for the easiest cases. And it is
>> the only instrument I know which allow to see dependency chains. It was
>> dselect some time ago which could do it too as I know, but now it seems
>> to be dead. BTW, it provides with good capabilities for searching
>> through packages.
>
> Remember that aptitude has evolved quite a bit.

> The scenarios that you and some others describe are not necessarily
> pertinent anymore.

It was about a year ago.

> Most often, I find that I can solve dependency problems by simply not
> upgrading one or more packages. You do that easily...

...hold them with apt-mark. But I prefer pinning.

> For instance, at the moment the package xul-ext-greasemonkey is marked
> as upgradable on my system, but the package's metadata has Iceweasel
> in a non-installable version as a dependency. Aptitude wants to remove
> xul-ext-greasemonkey and apt-get wants to remove Iceweasel.

In this case apt-get usually wants to keep package not upgraded. And,
btw, why don't you use upgrade instead of dist-upgrade?



Well, folks, it was an interesting thread, but I think it needs to be
finished. We've just started another holywar discussion. It is sad.

Attachment: pgpBl9TlC1e2s.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: