Re: aptitude cli options vs. apt-get (esp. --ignore-hold option)
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 10:41:40 +0100
Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> wrote:
> aptitude is, generally speaking, a more user-friendly interface to the
> apt system. If you're scripting (and especially as it already works),
> you should stick with apt-get. apt-get's output tends to be more stable
> and more readily parsable.
>
> Is there some feature of aptitude that apt is missing? What's your
> motivation for switching to aptitude here?
It's just to give users the choice. Some people prefer aptitude and I
figure it's nice to let them have their will :-)
I also don't think that apt-get and aptitude are exactly equivalent,
sometimes they may disagree about which packages to install/remove to
fulfil the dependencies a set of updates brings with.
Parsing the output does not seem to be a problem here either, it took me
a while to figure out that I had to replace apt-get's -q with aptitude's
-v , but now apparently it can be parsed just the same.
And it's not that aptitude does not work in my script, it's just that if
the option to include available updates for held back packages (and
possibly packages these would cause to be newly installed or removed) in
the upgrading candidates list is set, I don't know how to do this with
aptitude.
Regards
Michael
.-.. .. ...- . .-.. --- -. --. .- -. -.. .--. .-. --- ... .--. . .-.
Another Armenia, Belgium ... the weak innocents who always seem to be
located on a natural invasion route.
-- Kirk, "Errand of Mercy", stardate 3198.4
Reply to: