On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:40:29AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: > Aptitude may be better - it sure does the job. But it spends a lot of time > at every invocation on "building dependency trees" and "tag databases".
Well yes, aptitude is a huge pig of an object oriented C++ program. > It is therefore noticeably slower than apt-get to use for simple tasks > like installing a single uncontroversial package. Whenever I upgrade a > single > package, I get a list of all the not-upgraded packages - I didn't ask > for that. > and when it needs to remove something (despite the better resolution) > I have to confirm several times instead of just once with apt-get. I do tend to use apt-get myself just because I am used to typing that and rather impatient. > So, better in some ways, but also much clunkier. If it needs a > dependency tree and a tag database almost all the time, > why not keep the information around in a cache? Perhaps an > "apt-get" or manual "dpkg" might invalidate the cache, but > the information should at least stay current as long as I use > aptitude exclusively. That'd make aptitude much more pleasant. They are cached, but also have to be updated whenever the available packages lists change. Well at least some stuff is cached. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
