On Wednesday 07 December 2016 14:55:40 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-10-13 00:09:02 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Friday 07 October 2016 15:43:17 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > On 2016-10-04 22:51:34 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 04 October 2016 08:25:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > > > my position remains the same: > > > > > aptitude is poorly designed. > > > > > > > > Fine. So don't use it. But moaning won't help anyone, not even you. > > > > You don't like Aptitude. We get the message. So don't use Aptitude. > > > > > > And what do you propose instead? > > > > I don't use Sid, so haven't tested out which package managers are good > > for it when there are problems, but how about looking at apt or apt-get? > > Ben says that he has great success with apt-get. Apt-get is much less > > aggressive than aptitude - but less fully featured. > > > > If I use aptitude with a large number of upgrades, I try to break it up. > > At the very least I do > > # aptitude update > > #aptitude -s safe-upgrade > > # aptitude safe-upgrade > > # aptitude -s full-upgrade > > # aptitude full-upgrade > > Sorry for the late reply, but all these may remove important packages, > i.e. they have the same issues.
Don't let them - that is the point of the -s. safe-upgrade is specifically not supposed to remove anything at all, important or otherwise. And have you looked into apt and apt-get? Lisi
