Hi, On Wednesday 30 May 2007 16:39, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > >> > > I thought aptitude was the recommended frontend. > >> > In the case of security updates, it does not matter, because there are > >> > no complex dependencies to be resolved, you only upgrade existing > >> > packages and there should be no difference which program is used. > >> My point was that we should have consistent recommendations. > > Well, seemingly inconsistent, it's all the same APT library. > You know this, and propably most reading this list, but Andrei got a > point there, it propably will confuse some users. > > On the other hand - before changing it in those pages it would be > required to convince the security team to adapt their templates for the > DSAs they send out. Otherwise we will confuse those users even more, > having different recommendations wrt/ security in the different parts. The first step in convincing someone is to tell about the issue, so I cc:ed the security team :) Maybe it doesn't even need convincing, as everybody agrees that we should be consistent in our documentation, that aptitude is the recommended command-line package-manager and that therefore also the DSA templates should be changed to reflect that. Security team, do you agree? regards, Holger
Attachment:
pgpJHCkTmRr6H.pgp
Description: PGP signature