On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 03:31:28PM -0400, Stefan Monnier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
I actually keep wondering why apt-get and aptitude are not merged into one
(it looks like it good almost be done by just renaming aptitude to apt-get).
Mainly because aptitude is not apt-get. I'm
Still, if you're used to apt-get, I don't really see a reason to switch.
I always recommend aptitude, but never tell users to switch from apt-get
on a running system. If I should, please let me know the reasons.
The biggest benefit (at least until the new apt) would be the automatic
Andrei Popescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 07:10:17AM +, Silke Suck wrote:
Still, if you're used to apt-get, I don't really see a reason to switch.
I always recommend aptitude, but never tell users to switch from apt-get
on a running system. If I should, please
On Wednesday 18 July 2007 21:31:28 Stefan Monnier wrote:
Still, if you're used to apt-get, I don't really see a reason to switch.
I always recommend aptitude, but never tell users to switch from apt-get
on a running system. If I should, please let me know the reasons.
The biggest benefit
Joe Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If one uses only aptitude, there is no problem, but if one mixes the
two commands, then aptitude will eventually get confused and want to
remove vital components.
As said before in the original thread, this problem should be solved by
now. If you still
Stefan Monnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I actually keep wondering why apt-get and aptitude are not merged
into one (it looks like it good almost be done by just renaming
aptitude to apt-get).
See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/06/msg00379.html and the
entire thread. Very
6 matches
Mail list logo
