Hi, (Oops, sent before finishing message.)
Thanks for noticing this Steve. On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:43:41AM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Hi! > > I can see you've made a lot of edits in the Debian wiki in the last > few hours, switching lots of suggested command lines from using > "apt-get" to "aptitude". Could you explain yourself please? Oops. Let me explain to lluisrub...@gmail.com what we think. Our previous discussion on apt-get vs. aptitude can be found at: http://bugs.debian.org/411280 Although I love aptitude, this made me to write in "Debian Reference" as: | The package dependency resolver of the aptitude command tends to | suggests mass package removals when packages in unstable is temporary | inconsistent. This situation is a bit frightening. Usually, "apt-get | dist-upgrade" should resolve this situation. This situation seems to be | caused mostly by the version skew among packages depended or recommended | by a meta-package such as gnome-core. ... | Although the aptitude command comes with rich features such as its | enhanced package resolver, this complexity has caused (or may still | causes) some regressions such as Bug #411123, Bug #514930, and Bug | #570377. In case of doubt, please use the apt-get and apt-cache commands | over the aptitude command. See more at: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch02.en.html#_literal_apt_get_literal_literal_apt_cache_literal_vs_literal_aptitude_literal Regards, Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131122142305.GB3898@goofy.localdomain
