Re: apt-get deprecated?
On Thursday 05 May 2005 23:59, Wim De Smet wrote: Now there's several bugs posted on aptitude (check bugs.debian.org) about its command line interface. Apparently, this loading of the package cache doesn't happen completely or reliably in command line mode, resulting in aptitude not knowing about any packages you installed with apt-get, or manually set to hold with dpkg (and not with aptitude). Running aptitude and going in the curses interface should be a reliable workaround. Thanks for the warning on that, but I've seen the mass-uninstall thing happening in TUI mode as well. I read somewhere official that aptitude has different apt preferences by default, which is probably a big factor. I, personally, just haven't seen the need to work out the cause though, given that other tools act in a way that seems more intuitive. -- Lee. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get deprecated?
On 4/30/05, Lee Braiden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 30 April 2005 08:52, Jules Dubois wrote: In one case, I must type apt-get install package In the other case, I may type aptitude install package Sure, I save one keystroke but there's no hyphen in aptitude. I think it about evens out. There is more difference between the two than that. I'm not quite sure why, but aptitude will often want to uninstall MANY packages, for things like a simple package install, that apt-get will happily do without bother. Personally, I just don't trust aptitude any more. Not that I'm blaming aptitude: I may simply not understand it, but aptitude definitely isn't a drop-in, more modern version of apt-get. Somebody else may have already responded to this, but anyway, the full answer as I see it is this. When starting aptitude, aptitude updates its own packages list by reading in the dpkg state and merging it with its own list. Now there's several bugs posted on aptitude (check bugs.debian.org) about its command line interface. Apparently, this loading of the package cache doesn't happen completely or reliably in command line mode, resulting in aptitude not knowing about any packages you installed with apt-get, or manually set to hold with dpkg (and not with aptitude). Running aptitude and going in the curses interface should be a reliable workaround. greets, Wim
Re: apt-get deprecated?
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 12:59:21AM +0200, Wim De Smet wrote: [...] answer as I see it is this. When starting aptitude, aptitude updates its own packages list by reading in the dpkg state and merging it with its own list. Now there's several bugs posted on aptitude (check bugs.debian.org) about its command line interface. Apparently, this loading of the package cache doesn't happen completely or reliably in command line mode, resulting in aptitude not knowing about any packages you installed with apt-get, or manually set to hold with dpkg (and not with aptitude). Running aptitude and going in the curses interface should be a reliable workaround. Oh, thank you for clarifying that. I've seen various threads on the apt-get/aptitude problem, but never met any problem myself. I usually use aptitude running in the curses interface, and only occasionally do 'apt-get install somepackage'. By luck I've avoided aptitude in CL, and that has evidently saved me from blundering into another quagmire. -- richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get deprecated?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Brian Nelson wrote: The right thing to do is to kill the huge meta-packages like 'kde' since they are an ugly kludge and an abuse of the packaging system. Then what is componentized linux which sarge is said to be part of ? rrs - -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf RESEARCHUT -- http://www.researchut.com Gnupg Key ID: 04F130BC Stealing logic from one person is plagiarism, stealing from many is research. Necessity is the mother of invention. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCeTS44Rhi6gTxMLwRAmhkAJ4xgpwKQZ8iCNcSrkSXgYVgQooYaQCeLxko p+1Ksl4Oe/rhQvYRtpjhUjM= =i3nf -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get deprecated?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Paul E Condon wrote: Aptitude and apt-get behave differently when removing packages. Aptitude keeps track of which packages were install because the user directly requested that they be installed and which were installed in order to satisfy a dependency. Then when the user request that a package be removed, it checks its database of packages that were installed to satisfy a dependency and also removes those 'dependancy satisfying' packages that can be removed because no other package needs them. In most cases this is good, but it can lead to aptitude doing really bad things in some special situations. For instance, I once installed kde by requesting the single over-all package that exists only to bring in all the packages needed to give the user a standard kde set-up. Then, after using it for a while, I decided that a lot of what was there was stuff and clutter that I didn't want. I tried to remove the stuff that I didn't want, but aptitude wouldn't do it, because it insisted that I had to remove the over-all kde package first. But when I removed that, it threatened to remove all kde packages, which is not what I wanted. I used apt-get to remove the package kde. This made all of kde's component packages into independent packages in the little mind of aptitude. Then I removed the ones that I didn't want without aptitude trashing the rest of my kde set-up. So, both are needed, at least until users like me understand aptitude internals better. One good reason to stick to apt-get. :-) rrs - -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf RESEARCHUT -- http://www.researchut.com Gnupg Key ID: 04F130BC Stealing logic from one person is plagiarism, stealing from many is research. Necessity is the mother of invention. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCd7d34Rhi6gTxMLwRAspQAJ9leluLeUaoDX0oFGEDRe1YTZKDngCbB58M dfs+5lBYbRhcFXTE2S7RbF8= =PRzt -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get deprecated?
Monique Y. Mudama [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 2005-05-01, Paul E Condon penned: In most cases this is good, but it can lead to aptitude doing really bad things in some special situations. For instance, I once installed kde by requesting the single over-all package that exists only to bring in all the packages needed to give the user a standard kde set-up. Then, after using it for a while, I decided that a lot of what was there was stuff and clutter that I didn't want. I tried to remove the stuff that I didn't want, but aptitude wouldn't do it, because it insisted that I had to remove the over-all kde package first. But when I removed that, it threatened to remove _all_ kde packages, which is not what I wanted. I used apt-get to remove the package kde. This made all of kde's component packages into independent packages in the little mind of aptitude. Then I removed the ones that I didn't want without aptitude trashing the rest of my kde set-up. Ah, yes. I've run into that kind of obnoxiousness before. I think the right thing to do here would be to mark all the kde-related packages as being manually installed, or at least some key subset. AIUI, that will promote them to first-class citizens of aptitude-land. But when I ran into the problem, I don't think I knew about that. The right thing to do is to kill the huge meta-packages like 'kde' since they are an ugly kludge and an abuse of the packaging system. -- Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to pretend to like each other. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get deprecated?
On 2005-05-03, Brian Nelson penned: Monique Y. Mudama [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ah, yes. I've run into that kind of obnoxiousness before. I think the right thing to do here would be to mark all the kde-related packages as being manually installed, or at least some key subset. AIUI, that will promote them to first-class citizens of aptitude-land. But when I ran into the problem, I don't think I knew about that. The right thing to do is to kill the huge meta-packages like 'kde' since they are an ugly kludge and an abuse of the packaging system. Are you saying that tasks in general are an abuse of the packaging system? -- monique Ask smart questions, get good answers: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get deprecated?
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:31:59PM -0600, Monique Y. Mudama wrote: On 2005-05-03, Brian Nelson penned: Monique Y. Mudama [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ah, yes. I've run into that kind of obnoxiousness before. I think the right thing to do here would be to mark all the kde-related packages as being manually installed, or at least some key subset. AIUI, that will promote them to first-class citizens of aptitude-land. But when I ran into the problem, I don't think I knew about that. The right thing to do is to kill the huge meta-packages like 'kde' since they are an ugly kludge and an abuse of the packaging system. Are you saying that tasks in general are an abuse of the packaging system? No, tasks are fine. If 'kde' were a task and not a meta-package there wouldn't be so many problems with it. -- Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to pretend to like each other. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get deprecated?
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 09:25:16PM -0500, Steve Block wrote: There's no real need to use apt-get over aptitude. They use the same package lists and underlying architecture. Except that there is, since apt-get/dpkg and aptitude do NOT use the same status database for packages. Try it sometime. Put a package on hold with aptitude, apt-get and dpkg don't know about it. Put one on hold with dpkg, aptitude will sometimes import the hold, and sometimes it won't. Aptitude will also come up with differences in dependency resolution when you run it from the curses interface vs the command line. Aptitude... just say no. -- Marc Wilson | Bilbo's First Law: You cannot count friends that [EMAIL PROTECTED] | are all packed up in barrels. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get deprecated?
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 09:25:16PM -0500, Steve Block wrote: On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 09:11:43AM -0700, mm wrote: Is there any compelling reason to use `apt-get' over `aptitude', given the latter's more robust feature set (installation tracking, for example)? I've been using aptitude exclusively for about a year for installing packages, yet still see a lot of new documentation with directives to install/upgrade with apt-get. There's no real need to use apt-get over aptitude. They use the same package lists and underlying architecture. I remember readding something that they each use their own database. So that mixing the two methods was not a good idea. Or was that dselect? Can someone confirm or deny? -- Chris. == -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get deprecated?
On 5/2/05, Marc Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Except that there is, since apt-get/dpkg and aptitude do NOT use the same status database for packages. For reference, http://bugs.debian.org/161810 -- Jon Dowland http://jon.dowland.name/
Re: apt-get deprecated?
On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 23:05 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 09:25:16PM -0500, Steve Block wrote: On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 09:11:43AM -0700, mm wrote: Is there any compelling reason to use `apt-get' over `aptitude', given the latter's more robust feature set (installation tracking, for example)? I've been using aptitude exclusively for about a year for installing packages, yet still see a lot of new documentation with directives to install/upgrade with apt-get. There's no real need to use apt-get over aptitude. They use the same package lists and underlying architecture. I remember readding something that they each use their own database. So that mixing the two methods was not a good idea. Or was that dselect? Can someone confirm or deny? I'm not sure if it IS aptitude, but I'm relatively sure that it's NOT dselect. I used to use dselect exclusively (before I saw the light and started using wajig) and it would work on any changes that were set by apt-get and/or dpkg. i.e. I could mark packages for installation in one, and then execute the operation in another without a problem. -- Alex Malinovich Support Free Software, delete your Windows partition TODAY! Encrypted mail preferred. You can get my public key from any of the pgp.net keyservers. Key ID: A6D24837 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: apt-get deprecated?
Incoming from Chris Bannister: I remember readding something that they each use their own database. So that mixing the two methods was not a good idea. Confirmed. Karsten M. Self did an analysis of this (check the archives). You can see it when adding a source for backports to your sources.list. You have to do apt-get update aptitude update aptitude upgrade on both ends to eliminate the resultant errors. -- Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. (*)http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling Please don't Cc: me. - - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get deprecated?
On May 02 2005, Alex Malinovich wrote: before I saw the light and started using wajig You guys started to make so much fuss about wajig that I tried it yesterday. Wow, I fell in love with it. For those that don't know, it is a front-end for apt-get, dpkg, debsums, dpgk-repackage and other package management tools all with a clean and unified interface for the user. And it does something that I don't know how to do in aptitude (or, at least, the manual doesn't mention and nobody here was able to tell me how to do): list the packages sorted by size. This is especially useful for those moments when you are tight on disk and has to remove some big packages of little use. Surely a nice companion to both deborphan and debfoster (and I'd recommend both for those wanting to keep a tidy system). Another nice feature of wajig is that it generates a snapshot of those packages you have installed and which versions they are. Quite nice for making backups and for those disaster recovery situations. Hope this helps, Rogério Brito. -- Rogério Brito : [EMAIL PROTECTED] : http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito Homepage of the algorithms package : http://algorithms.berlios.de Homepage on freshmeat: http://freshmeat.net/projects/algorithms/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get deprecated?
On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 09:17 +0100, Anthony Campbell wrote: On 28 Apr 2005, Steve Block wrote: On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 09:11:43AM -0700, mm wrote: Is there any compelling reason to use `apt-get' over `aptitude', given the latter's more robust feature set (installation tracking, for example)? I've been using aptitude exclusively for about a year for installing packages, yet still see a lot of new documentation with directives to install/upgrade with apt-get. There's no real need to use apt-get over aptitude. They use the same package lists and underlying architecture. Of course I do everything with wajig. As a fairly recent convert, I'd endorse this recommendation of wajig. Aptitude, which I used for about 2 years, worked pretty well for me much of the time but occasionally it went wild and did all sorts of things it shouldn't. Wajig has been absolutely reliable so far. Because wajig (which I just started using, and think is very good) is a wrapper around apt-get. I'm Yet Another who's seen aptitude go wacky and want to remove too many packages. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. There's no obfuscated Perl contest because it's pointless. Jeff Polk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: apt-get deprecated?
On 30 Apr 2005, Jules Dubois wrote: On Saturday 30 April 2005 07:19, Lee Braiden [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: [snip] Personally, I updated the package database using aptitude, by hand -- this is basically a one-time, if tedious, process. Following this, the idea that apt-get will happily do without the bother means that apt-get won't automatically remove packages which are really are unused. In those days, I found some cases where four versions of a library were installed of which three really were unneeded. (Whether this state of affairs requires correction is generally a matter of opinion. In my opinion, it did.) To 'tidy' such a system requires either * knowing a priori which packages can be purged; * trial and error at simulating package removal while noting which (otherwise desirable or necessary) packages might also be removed; or * using some tool which shows the dependencies of packages you want, and removing anything which doesn't appear in these lists. [snip] Currently I just do wajig purge-orphans occasionally, which seems to do the job reliably and safely so far as I can see. Anthony -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]|| http://www.acampbell.org.uk for using Linux GNU/Debian || blog, book reviews, electronic Windows-free zone || books and skeptical articles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get deprecated?
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 10:10:24AM +0100, Anthony Campbell wrote: On 30 Apr 2005, Jules Dubois wrote: To 'tidy' such a system requires either * knowing a priori which packages can be purged; * trial and error at simulating package removal while noting which (otherwise desirable or necessary) packages might also be removed; or * using some tool which shows the dependencies of packages you want, and removing anything which doesn't appear in these lists. [snip] Currently I just do wajig purge-orphans occasionally, which seems to do the job reliably and safely so far as I can see. That sounds a lot like orphaner from the deborphan package. I use that occasionally to remove mainly old libraries from my system. It lets you simulate what other packages would be removed that depend on these. A handy companion is debfoster, from package debfoster. It goes through the list of installed packages and asks if you want to keep them installed. It goes like this: ethereal is keeping the following 6 packages installed: ethereal-common gksu libadns1 libadns1-bin libgksu1.2-0 libgksuui1.0-0 Keep ethereal? [Ynpsiuqx?], [H]elp: H YesKeep ethereal. [default] No Delete ethereal. Prune Delete ethereal and the packages it is keeping installed. Skip Skip this question. Help Print this message. Info or ? Show information about ethereal. Undo Undo last response. Quit Exit without removing packages. Exit Remove unwanted packages and exit. These two programs help to keep your system tidy. -- Maurits van Rees | http://maurits.vanrees.org/ [Dutch/Nederlands] Public GnuPG key: keyserver.net ID 0x1735C5C2 Let your advance worrying become advance thinking and planning. - Winston Churchill signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: apt-get deprecated?
On 01 May 2005, Maurits van Rees wrote: Currently I just do wajig purge-orphans occasionally, which seems to do the job reliably and safely so far as I can see. That sounds a lot like orphaner from the deborphan package. I use that occasionally to remove mainly old libraries from my system. It lets you simulate what other packages would be removed that depend on these. A handy companion is debfoster, from package debfoster. It goes through the list of installed packages and asks if you want to keep them installed. It goes like this: ethereal is keeping the following 6 packages installed: ethereal-common gksu libadns1 libadns1-bin libgksu1.2-0 libgksuui1.0-0 Keep ethereal? [Ynpsiuqx?], [H]elp: H YesKeep ethereal. [default] No Delete ethereal. Prune Delete ethereal and the packages it is keeping installed. Skip Skip this question. Help Print this message. Info or ? Show information about ethereal. Undo Undo last response. Quit Exit without removing packages. Exit Remove unwanted packages and exit. These two programs help to keep your system tidy. Thanks - useful suggestion. Anthony -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]|| http://www.acampbell.org.uk for using Linux GNU/Debian || blog, book reviews, electronic Windows-free zone || books and skeptical articles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get deprecated?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 mm wrote: Is there any compelling reason to use `apt-get' over `aptitude', given the latter's more robust feature set (installation tracking, for example)? The compelling reason could be that I just like apt-get and I don't see anything not achievable in it that I should switch to something else. I've been using aptitude exclusively for about a year for installing packages, yet still see a lot of new documentation with directives to install/upgrade with apt-get. You can contribute more documentation for aptitude still. rrs - -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf RESEARCHUT -- http://www.researchut.com Gnupg Key ID: 04F130BC Stealing logic from one person is plagiarism, stealing from many is research. Necessity is the mother of invention. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCdNDZ4Rhi6gTxMLwRAitbAJwOHb8h6Poybl2R5Ogjya55/cgTcwCeNN9J ZleTWuFqmzIkMJep8jJAlIk= =ToXm -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get deprecated?
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 06:21:32PM +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 mm wrote: Is there any compelling reason to use `apt-get' over `aptitude', given the latter's more robust feature set (installation tracking, for example)? The compelling reason could be that I just like apt-get and I don't see anything not achievable in it that I should switch to something else. I've been using aptitude exclusively for about a year for installing packages, yet still see a lot of new documentation with directives to install/upgrade with apt-get. Aptitude and apt-get behave differently when _removing_ packages. Aptitude keeps track of which packages were install because the user directly requested that they be installed and which were installed in order to satisfy a dependency. Then when the user request that a package be removed, it checks its database of packages that were installed to satisfy a dependency and also removes those 'dependancy satisfying' packages that can be removed because no other package needs them. In most cases this is good, but it can lead to aptitude doing really bad things in some special situations. For instance, I once installed kde by requesting the single over-all package that exists only to bring in all the packages needed to give the user a standard kde set-up. Then, after using it for a while, I decided that a lot of what was there was stuff and clutter that I didn't want. I tried to remove the stuff that I didn't want, but aptitude wouldn't do it, because it insisted that I had to remove the over-all kde package first. But when I removed that, it threatened to remove _all_ kde packages, which is not what I wanted. I used apt-get to remove the package kde. This made all of kde's component packages into independent packages in the little mind of aptitude. Then I removed the ones that I didn't want without aptitude trashing the rest of my kde set-up. So, both are needed, at least until users like me understand aptitude internals better. -- Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get deprecated?
Dear all, Just my experience: On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Jules Dubois wrote: On Saturday 30 April 2005 07:19, Lee Braiden [EMAIL PROTECTED] (...) If one uses aptitude from the start, it is a drop-in replacement. If one doesn't, some real work is required, and then it's again a drop-in replacement. (...) I've just installed Sarge on a laptop. I have been using apt-get in my desktop for many years without problems, but after checking some comments about aptitude here in the list, it seemed like a better idea. I was worried about about the removing problem, which I had seen mentioned here also, so I stuck with apt-get with my desktop. But, since I had fresh installation in the laptop, I thought I would it just start with it, so that there would be no problems with the databases But, I guess that the insallation software used apt-get (it was a net-install), since the first time I tried to use apitutde, right after the installation, it wanted to remove MANY packages... (Nothing could be considered unused yet, I suppose...) Not knowing enough to decide whether or not it was really wise to remove them, I again stuck with good old apt-get. So, with net-install at least, using aptitude from the start might not work out of the box. Well, I will make a fresh install of Sarge (now from DVDs) in a new HD in my desktop, so I'll give it another shot. Best to all, Luis P.S.: any comments on what happened in the laptop installation or how could I have fixed it would be greatly appreciated, although I will check the man pages (etc.) before my next install. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get deprecated?
On 2005-05-01, Luis Finotti penned: Dear all, Just my experience: [snip] But, I guess that the insallation software used apt-get (it was a net-install), since the first time I tried to use apitutde, right after the installation, it wanted to remove MANY packages... (Nothing could be considered unused yet, I suppose...) Not knowing enough to decide whether or not it was really wise to remove them, I again stuck with good old apt-get. So, with net-install at least, using aptitude from the start might not work out of the box. [snip] P.S.: any comments on what happened in the laptop installation or how could I have fixed it would be greatly appreciated, although I will check the man pages (etc.) before my next install. Well, I just did a fresh install from the latest debian-installer image last night ... but I'll grant that I do things weirdly. For example, I knew that I wanted to run unstable, so after the system rebooted, I shot straight down to finish install or whatever that option is, rather than going through the configuration steps. (There was probably useful stuff in there, but I'm impatient -- I'd had cd burning issues and was about at the end of my rope; I just wanted the stupid thing to be done!) As far as I know, dist-upgrade works better if you have the newest version for your dist of everything you have installed, so I pointed my sources.list file to the web and ran aptitude. Things were marked as installed, but not upgraded, so I went through and manually hit + for those things. There's probably an easy way to do this using a built-in expression, but as I hadn't added anything to the base install, I only had to care about a handful of packages. The only snag was the one I always have using aptitude: when I updated the sources to point to unstable instead of sarge, aptitude gets confused. I needed to use apt-get for the package list update, and from then on I could use aptitude easily. Aptitude never tried to uninstall anything, but now that I think about it, that's probably because I only had the base packages installed, and I assume it's smart enough not to encourage you to blow those away. Now that I've typed all of this up, I realize that it probably doesn't help you much, but maybe someone will see what I do and have helpful comments, so I'm sending it anyway. -- monique Ask smart questions, get good answers: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get deprecated?
On 2005-05-01, Paul E Condon penned: In most cases this is good, but it can lead to aptitude doing really bad things in some special situations. For instance, I once installed kde by requesting the single over-all package that exists only to bring in all the packages needed to give the user a standard kde set-up. Then, after using it for a while, I decided that a lot of what was there was stuff and clutter that I didn't want. I tried to remove the stuff that I didn't want, but aptitude wouldn't do it, because it insisted that I had to remove the over-all kde package first. But when I removed that, it threatened to remove _all_ kde packages, which is not what I wanted. I used apt-get to remove the package kde. This made all of kde's component packages into independent packages in the little mind of aptitude. Then I removed the ones that I didn't want without aptitude trashing the rest of my kde set-up. Ah, yes. I've run into that kind of obnoxiousness before. I think the right thing to do here would be to mark all the kde-related packages as being manually installed, or at least some key subset. AIUI, that will promote them to first-class citizens of aptitude-land. But when I ran into the problem, I don't think I knew about that. -- monique Ask smart questions, get good answers: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get deprecated?
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 11:39:03AM -0600, Monique Y. Mudama wrote: On 2005-05-01, Paul E Condon penned: In most cases this is good, but it can lead to aptitude doing really bad things in some special situations. For instance, I once installed kde by requesting the single over-all package that exists only to bring in all the packages needed to give the user a standard kde set-up. Then, after using it for a while, I decided that a lot of what was there was stuff and clutter that I didn't want. I tried to remove the stuff that I didn't want, but aptitude wouldn't do it, because it insisted that I had to remove the over-all kde package first. But when I removed that, it threatened to remove _all_ kde packages, which is not what I wanted. I used apt-get to remove the package kde. This made all of kde's component packages into independent packages in the little mind of aptitude. Then I removed the ones that I didn't want without aptitude trashing the rest of my kde set-up. Ah, yes. I've run into that kind of obnoxiousness before. I think the right thing to do here would be to mark all the kde-related packages as being manually installed, or at least some key subset. AIUI, that will promote them to first-class citizens of aptitude-land. But when I ran into the problem, I don't think I knew about that. When I ran into that, during a routine sarge upgrade (seems the kde package was temporarily absent or something) I went over the list of things it wanted to delete. For each one I asked what deoended on it, and followed the chains up until I found something or nothing I wanted. Then I explicitly asked to install that, or not. After a while, the list was reasonably short and I was happy with it. What bothers me are the times I get a huge list of packages to be deleted because no one wants them, and simultaneously a huge list of packages to be newly installed. The trouble is that the lists are vary similar. A lot of these packages should have been listed as upgrades, not deletions and installs. -- hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get deprecated?
Luis Finotti wrote: So, with net-install at least, using aptitude from the start might not work out of the box. I just recently did a Sarge net-install and have exclusively used aptitude. I have had no problems. Then only thing I've had to do is mark the dependencies of packages which were installed during the net-install as automatic. This is my preferences and I do it when these packages get updated. I like being able to see the dependencies(suggests and recommended) clearly when installing and updating packages. The final screen before confirming your install/update, where you can scroll the packages list of automatically install packages and see what package requires them is especially nice when you are install multiple packages. I additionally appreciated being able to select suggested and recommended packages and have them installed automatically. I couldn't figure out how to do this with apt-get, I continually had to go to packages.debian.org and find those items and then install them separately. If I decided I did not what the package, I would have to remember to remove those aux. packages. I have never had aptitude try to remove unwanted packages, except when I made a mistake myself. However I don't have any pinned packages and don't keep and mixed system (except for a couple packages from unstable). I'm also religious about check dependencies of the packages I install and the dependencies of the dependencies and so on and making sure they are all mark the way I would like them to be. Aptitude is nice for this. I must say I never had a problem with apt-get either. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
