On Vi, 07 aug 20, 13:31:53, Default User wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> Recently there was a thread about aptitude dependency resolution
> limitations.
If you are referring to the limitations of 'aptitude why', this 1)
reverse dependency and 2) apt / apt-get don't even have (an equivalent
for) this.
> Years ago, I believe I read in the Debian documentation that aptitude was
> preferred to apt-get, because it seemed to have better dependency
> resolution.
The dependency resolution of aptitude is more... advanced ;)
Depending on the situation this may or may not be good. While APT's
dependency resolution is simpler, it is also more predictable.
> Now, we have apt, as well.
The command 'apt' is just another frontend to APT (the package manager),
same as apt-get, apt-cache, etc. which it is meant to replace for
interactive use.
The dependency resolution algorithm is the same. It does have different
defaults though, e.g. 'apt upgrade' is equivalent to
'apt-get upgrade --with-new-pkgs'.
> So, all other things being equal, which is currently considered to be the
> best at dependency resolution?
Just my personal opinion:
For stable (+ updates, security, backports) it doesn't matter, use
whichever you like best.
For testing or unstable aptitude's interactive dependency resolution can
be very useful. It may need some tweaking though, according to my
archive I was using
Aptitude::ProblemResolver::SolutionCost "removals";
to tweak the resolver. This may have changed in the meantime (it's been
a few releases since I stopped using unstable for my "main" install).
For upgrades between stable releases (also known as a "dist-upgrade"
because of the 'apt-get' command) always use whatever is recommended in
the corresponding Release Notes, because that is what was tested and
found to produce the best results *for that particular distribution
upgrade*.
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature