Re: apt-* vs aptitude vs synaptic
Lennart Sorensen wrote: 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. And if I only change that by doing "aptitude update" then no database building should be necessary at "aptitude install" time. But it happens everytime. :-/ Helge Hafting -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-* vs aptitude vs synaptic
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:52:28AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > > Not so sure about that. Using a mouse doens't make things any easier. Especially when you're having trouble with an X upgrade! I find it useful for the software that controls the upgrade to need as little of the system as possible. -- hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-* vs aptitude vs synaptic
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 05:41:50PM +0200, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: > Hmm., all these answers did not really solve my problems. I wondered, why > aptitude did another choice of installing and uninstalling packages, although > both are using the identical database. They use the same package lists. When there is a conflict however they have different rules for how to solve them. apt-get for the most part will just tell you there is a conflict. aptitude will try lots of combinations of removals and upgrades and putting things on hold to try and make an upgrade or install possible with as little disruption to the current state of packages on the system as possible. > And if they really do (as you will admit me), how can I make aptitude to > behave same as apt-get (relating to the choice of packages) ? You can't. It's conflict resolution rules are simply much more advanced. > I think, for endusers (non technical or Debian newbies), synaptic will be the > best choice, rather than apt-* or aptitude. (For most of them, cron-apt is > working fine, too). Not so sure about that. Using a mouse doens't make things any easier. > I am using apt-* for easy things, aptitude for upgrades and synaptic, if I am > searching for a string or a string in a description. (I found no way, getting > full description and packagename with apt-*, as "apt-cache search string -f" > only got a part of the description.) apt-cache search will find things. apt-cache show packagename will show the full description. > Anyway, synaptic is working fine for this case. :) Sure synaptic works. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-* vs aptitude vs synaptic
Am Mittwoch, 23. April 2008 schrieb Lennart Sorensen: > 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. Hmm., all these answers did not really solve my problems. I wondered, why aptitude did another choice of installing and uninstalling packages, although both are using the identical database. And if they really do (as you will admit me), how can I make aptitude to behave same as apt-get (relating to the choice of packages) ? I think, for endusers (non technical or Debian newbies), synaptic will be the best choice, rather than apt-* or aptitude. (For most of them, cron-apt is working fine, too). I am using apt-* for easy things, aptitude for upgrades and synaptic, if I am searching for a string or a string in a description. (I found no way, getting full description and packagename with apt-*, as "apt-cache search string -f" only got a part of the description.) Anyway, synaptic is working fine for this case. :) Best regards Hans -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-* vs aptitude vs synaptic
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]
Re: apt-* vs aptitude vs synaptic
Lennart Sorensen wrote: I believe the officially recommended tool in Debian is aptitude as of the Etch release. It simply does dependancy resolution better than the other tools. I personally tend to mostly use apt-get still, mostly out of habit. Of course any apt-get command can be issued with aptitude the same way, except you get the more advanced dependancy resolution. aptitude will offer possible solutions to conflicts and let you pick an option, while apt-get simply makes a decision and asks if you want to proceed. 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". 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. 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. Helge Hafting -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-* vs aptitude vs synaptic
Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: Dear maintainers, it seems for me, that the commandline tool "apt", the ncurses tool "aptitude" and the graphical tool "synaptic" might use different databases. So I need a little more background (and knowledge) about this, otherwise I cannot explain myself, why "apt-get dist-upgrade" is giving another result as "aptitude" (in my case "apt-get dist-upgrade" wants to deinstall some openoffice.org-packages, beryl* and some other, but "aptitude" will not want to deinstall those). Are they using all different databases ? Or is it just related to some configuration ? I looked into the manuals, but found no explanation... Regards Hans The following contributions from debian-user (linux.debian.user) contain some hints: Re: Packages temporarily disappearing from Testing/Lenny http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2008/04/msg01506.html apt-get auto-recommends (was Re: Packages temporarily ...) http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2008/04/msg01456.html -- Regards, Jörg-Volker. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-* vs aptitude vs synaptic
One other tool you might consider is wajig that includes the gui front-end gjig. Apt has finally started doing logging, but have found wajig's logging to be more useful - and a log you might not want to delete except when moving between releases. The wajig log has saved me a lot of time in figuring out what update broke something. If you need to do work via the command line, wajig is intuitive and MUCH easier to learn than memorizing all the apt and dpkg switches. Karl Schmidt EMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Transtronics, Inc. WEB http://xtronics.com 3209 West 9th StreetPh (785) 841-3089 Lawrence, KS 66049 FAX (785) 841-0434 Subtle recursive jokes in signatures are funny. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-* vs aptitude vs synaptic
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 04:21:05PM +0200, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote: > Dear maintainers, > > it seems for me, that the commandline tool "apt", the ncurses tool "aptitude" > and the graphical tool "synaptic" might use different databases. > > So I need a little more background (and knowledge) about this, otherwise I > cannot explain myself, why "apt-get dist-upgrade" is giving another result > as "aptitude" (in my case "apt-get dist-upgrade" wants to deinstall some > openoffice.org-packages, beryl* and some other, but "aptitude" will not want > to deinstall those). > > Are they using all different databases ? Or is it just related to some > configuration ? > > I looked into the manuals, but found no explanation... They all use dpkg's database of installed packages, and the same list of available packages. They do however differ in how they resolve dependancy comflicts. Aptitude tries much mroe complex solutions to try and avoid uninstalling something than apt-get. Not sure what synaptic does since I never use it. I believe the officially recommended tool in Debian is aptitude as of the Etch release. It simply does dependancy resolution better than the other tools. I personally tend to mostly use apt-get still, mostly out of habit. Of course any apt-get command can be issued with aptitude the same way, except you get the more advanced dependancy resolution. aptitude will offer possible solutions to conflicts and let you pick an option, while apt-get simply makes a decision and asks if you want to proceed. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
