Re: apt-get vs Aptitude
On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 21:30 -0500, Lukasz Szybalski wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Don Armstrong <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Lukasz Szybalski wrote:
> > > Is it safe to recommend using aptitude in online documentation?
> > Yes, and it's what should be recommended generally.
I think we should use "apt-get [install|remove]" in our documentation.
My rational is that some setup runs apt* updates automatically. If a
user later use "aptitude install foo", it would install those updates
too, which leads the user to wonder "Why is that installing
verytinyhttpdaemon requires downloading 20Mb and tens of packages ?"
(ok my figures are overestimated, but you get the idea;)
The user might therefore get diverted from the current documentation
(s)he's reading (due to the extra prompts and config file updates).
Don't get me wrong on this post. I really love aptitude and use it's
ncurse interface on my day-to-day work. And I think it deserves to be
widely known and used. Still my own experience is that I tried to switch
from "apt-get install" to "aptitude install" myself, but I switched
back. Yes this habit is especially due to my Debian/Testing laptop, not
What benefit would there be in documenting "aptitude install" ?