summary: the Debian "general public" is being regularly told that `apt-get dist-upgrade` is recommended over `aptitude dist-upgrade`--period, full stop. `apt` and `aptitude` developers who are concerned that users be better informed should recommend slightly more accurate text to the the Debian Reference (DR) maintainer(s): e.g.,
* `apt-get dist-upgrade` is better for non-interactive usecases, especially for beginners lacking sufficient knowledge of Debian packaging and package dependencies. * `aptitude dist-upgrade` is better for interactive usecases (e.g., more complicated upgrades from less-standard repositories), provided one has the knowledge required to interact successfully. details: Axel Beckert Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:58:56 +0200[1] > [This thread's Subject line] is misleading[:] aptitude understands both > dist-upgrade and full-upgrade. Fair enough: I'll use both `apt-get dist-upgrade` and `aptitude dist-upgrade` below and in future. > (And "apt" also understands "full-upgrade", btw.) That I did not know; thanks for the info. That being said, this is probably the first time I've ever seen `apt full-upgrade` or `apt-get full-upgrade` mentioned in print, and I'd bet money it's not a widespread usage. Tom Roche Sat, 11 Jul 2015 17:38:49 -0400[2] >> `aptitude` does regularly bring one annoyance (to me--YMMV): whenever I post >> to a list or a forum, >> if I even mention `aptitude`, I get a bunch of responses telling me to use >> `apt-get` instead. >> Even when the problem appears to be hardware-related[3], i.e., to have no >> relation to debian packaging[.] >> The `apt-get` jihadis are especially emphatic when discussing [dist-upgrade]. > You should not ask them if you're asking for aptitude advice. My point above is precisely that, even when one is asking a non-packaging question in a general forum (see the linked thread[3]) and *is not* "asking for `aptitude` advice`, one gets `apt-get` advice, precisely because of >> (in increasing order of emphasis) >> 1. bad `aptitude` experiences in the distant past >> 2. bug#=411280[4], an 8.5-year-old archived bug, on which the last activity >> was 5 years ago. >> 3. Debian Reference section#=2.2.1[5], which cites ... bug#=411280. Obviously `apt` and `aptitude` developers can't affect item#=1, but IMHO you really should contact the DR maintainer(s) about item#=3, if only because item#=2 would probably not be misinterpreted as relevant if it was not cited and linked to from the DR. >> are there any plans to update relevant Debian documents such as the Debian >> Reference[5] or bug#=411280[4]? > Bug #411280 has been resolved in 2010. > And I don't see what's wrong with the Debian References Quoting the relevant text: DR section#=2.2.1[5] >>> The aptitude command is not recommended for the release-to-release system >>> upgrade on the stable Debian system after the new release. The use of >>> "apt-get dist-upgrade" is recommended for [that]. See Bug #411280[3, link >>> in original] As a native speaker of English, I must protest that the meaning of that DR text differs greatly from that in Herr Beckert's post: > apt(-get) (dist|full)-upgrade is for one-shot commands, aptitude full-upgrade > [is] for [when] you want to change [its programmatic recommendations] > interactively. ... > If you don't want to think about the difference between apt-get and aptitude > on the command-line, it is (IMHO strongly) recommended to use apt-get or apt > as that one in most cases produces better one-shot dependency resolutions. ... > I'd recommend "apt" for beginners nowadays. If they [gain] some experience > and [run] into some dependency issues ([e.g.,] in unstable) _and_ are > dissatisfied with apt, they should have a look at aptitude's interactive > dependency resolution. > And if they like [aptitude's] TUI, they should just use it. ICBW (please correct where wrong), but Beckert is saying that * `apt-get dist-upgrade` is better for non-interactive usecases, especially for beginners. * `aptitude dist-upgrade` is better for interactive usecases, e.g., involving packages with dependency issues. * `apt`'s package dependency resolver is not more or less robust or error-prone than `aptitude`'s (and vv). That's quite different from the (IMHO) nuance-free meaning of DR section#=2.2.1[5] above, which moreover continues: >>> * apt-get is most suitable for the major system upgrade between releases, >>> etc. >>> * apt-get offers a *robust* [bold in original] package dependency resolver. No nuance there! > When writing documentation[,] you should always use apt-get. That statement seems, frankly, bizarre. The better recommendation (IMHO) for Debian documentation (esp references) is to tell Debian users which tools are better for which usecases--*not* to tell users that `apt-get dist-upgrade` is recommended over `aptitude dist-upgrade`, "end of story" (as they say in the US). Instead, why not tell users (via, e.g., the DR) that * `apt-get dist-upgrade` is better for non-interactive usecases, especially for beginners lacking sufficient knowledge of Debian packaging and package dependencies. * `aptitude dist-upgrade` is better for interactive usecases (e.g., more complicated upgrades from less-standard repositories), provided one has the knowledge required to interact successfully. * `apt-get` and `aptitude` use different package dependency resolvers for different usecases, but one is not more robust than the other. * bug#=411280[4] is no longer relevant. ? TIA, Tom Roche <[email protected]> [1]: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/aptitude-devel/2015-July/004859.html [2]: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/aptitude-devel/2015-July/004858.html [3]: http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=123574 [4]: http://bugs.debian.org/411280 [5]: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch02.en.html#_literal_apt_get_literal_literal_apt_cache_literal_vs_literal_aptitude_literal _______________________________________________ Aptitude-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel
