On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 11:26:07AM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 11:14:54AM -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > So, is the consensus to stick with 'apt'? Or at least to choose one and > > stick with that and not to mix apt and aptitude (it sounds to me as though > > Marc is saying if you mix you'll end up with 2 out of date lists of what > > has/hasn't been inst-ed) > > No, I made no such statement. I said that aptitude ignored the status file > in favor of its own re-implementation of it. I should have been more > clear. > > Aptitude *does* read the status file, and copy its flags to its own file. > The problem is that it does it only when you use the ncurses interface. > Try it... put a package on hold with the normal tools (dpkg, dselect), then > try 'aptitude upgrade'. Aptitude won't recognize that the package is on > hold. > > What *dpkg* does is the standard. If aptitude doesn't honor it, it's > broken.
What dpkg does is broken. It has no business storing that stuff in the status file. Consider aptitude to be, errr, "ahead of its time". dselect and apt-get are both dead-end tools whose development was largely halted long ago. If you rely on them to define the "standard", you're never going to get anywhere. > If aptitude is *inconsistent*, as it is between the command line > and the ncurses interface, it's WORSE. The command-line is an after-thought in aptitude. It's not intended to be used as the primary interface and is not as well supported. The inconsistency is a known bug, and it'll be fixed some day. It's not a high priority though, and certainly isn't something that should prevent aptitude's use at all. -- For every sprinkle I find, I shall kill you! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
