On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 15:45:05 -0400, Stephen wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 11:53:46AM -0400 or thereabouts, Rick Reynolds wrote:
> > I've googled this quite a bit and found various web pages praising
> > aptitude as a "better apt-get". But I've also seen cautions about
> > mixing the two.
>
> You might try searching the archives for articles confirming what I'm
> saying;
>
> You wouldn't necessarily mix the two, but the two can be installed on
> the same machine -- Mine are. I don't use apt-get, and simply run
> aptitude from the command line. It works much the same as the apt-get
> command.
Aptitude depends on libapt-pkg-libc6, which is currently provided by the
apt package, therefore you will always have apt(-get) installed along
with aptitude. (Maybe that will change in the future, or the apt-get
command will be dropped from the apt package?) You cannot break anything
by using aptitude and apt-get together, but you will (partially)
neutralize many of the advantages of aptitude. Just think of aptitude as
a tool which integrates the functionality of apt-get, apt-cache, etc.
into one utility with an optional ncurses-GUI and a broader repertoire
for the resolution of dependency problems. An improved search interface,
logging, and keeping track of automatically installed packages are
additional goodies thrown in the mix.
> I've run command line aptitude for several years without any problem in
> doing so. In fact, it was on this list that I read an e-mail by a
> revered member of this list, (can't remember offhand whom it was) who
> indicated that aptitude handled dependencies and management better than
> apt-get can.
Another thing to keep in mind is that apt-get has Super Cow Powers,
while aptitude does not have them. (Try "apt-get moo" and compare this
to "aptitude moo". Also check the effect of increasing the verbosity
with aptitude, i.e. add the options "-v", "-vv", etc.)
--
Regards,
Florian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
