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
>
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
>
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
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 m
-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 a
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)?
> >
>
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
> rep
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
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 us
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
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
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.
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 aptitu
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/
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 (ins
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
source
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 packa
-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
"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
>>
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 su
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
>
-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 R
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
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
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
25 matches
Mail list logo
