Re: apt-get vs Aptitude
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Franklin PIAT wrote:
> 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;)
It won't unless you mark those packages for upgrading. If you do not,
aptitude install won't do anything besides installing the packages
that you've asked to have installed.
> What benefit would there be in documenting "aptitude install" ?
Because aptitude is the recommended frontend, and resolves problems
far better than apt-get is currently able to do. It also properly
handles automatically installed packages, allows users to choose which
problem resolution they use, has a more powerfull package selection
method, can handle queuing actions, has an ncurses interface, can show
changelogs, can report bugs, can slice, can dice, can use the kitchen
I shall require that [a scientific system's] logical form shall be
such that it can be singled out, by means of emperical tests, in a
negative sense: it must be possible for an emperical scientific system
to be refuted by experience.
-- Sir Karl Popper _Logic of Scientific Discovery_ §6