On Fri 16 Dec 2016 at 12:40:29 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-12-07 23:45:24 +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > 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. > > The -s is actually not necessary since if a package is to be removed, > the user may still refuse.
It protects one from making a mistake by a lapse of attention while focussing on the problem in hand, ie examining lists of packages that apt* wants to remove. Why discourage its use? But more than that, -s allows one to $ aptitude -s full-upgrade rather than # aptitude -s full-upgrade so one can investigate these issues without even taking on root privilege at all. Cheers, David.
