Re: stupid dependency on aptitude

2006-08-26 Thread Anthony Campbell
On 25 Aug 2006, T wrote: On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 11:45:49 -0400, Gregory Seidman wrote: I totally agree. apt-get is sufficient. If you worry about the unneeded packages, then use deborphan. I use it every time I install or un-install packages. no hassle at all. I never use aptitude,

stupid dependency on aptitude

2006-08-25 Thread T
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 11:45:49 -0400, Gregory Seidman wrote: } That's your problem. aptitude sucks. } } I always use something like aptitude install -t version xxx. Aptitude } remembers reverse dependencies, hence aptitude purge xxx will remove xxx } and all it's deps, apt-get won't.

Re: stupid dependency on aptitude

2006-08-25 Thread Wackojacko
T wrote: On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 11:45:49 -0400, Gregory Seidman wrote: } That's your problem. aptitude sucks. } } I always use something like aptitude install -t version xxx. Aptitude } remembers reverse dependencies, hence aptitude purge xxx will remove xxx } and all it's deps, apt-get

Re: stupid dependency on aptitude

2006-08-25 Thread Matej Cepl
Wackojacko wrote: hopefully kpackage can be made to use aptitude in the future! It is called adept and its not-yet-100%-stable version is already in Debian/{unstable,testing} Matěj -- GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/blog/, Jabber:

Re: stupid dependency on aptitude

2006-08-25 Thread Christopher Nelson
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 05:41:03PM +0100, Wackojacko wrote: T wrote: If you worry about the unneeded packages, then use deborphan. I use it every time I install or un-install packages. no hassle at all. The only problem with this is that, IIRC, deborphan is deprecated in sid/etch as

Re: stupid dependency on aptitude

2006-08-25 Thread Jeff Zhang
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Christopher Nelson wrote: On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 05:41:03PM +0100, Wackojacko wrote: T wrote: If you worry about the unneeded packages, then use deborphan. I use it every time I install or un-install packages. no hassle at all. The only problem