On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 11:26:07 -0800, Marc Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 11:14:54AM -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > So, is the consensus to stick with 'apt'? Or at least to choose one and > > stick with that and not to mix apt and aptitude (it sounds to me as though > > Marc is saying if you mix you'll end up with 2 out of date lists of what > > has/hasn't been inst-ed) > > No, I made no such statement. I said that aptitude ignored the status file > in favor of its own re-implementation of it. I should have been more > clear. > > Aptitude *does* read the status file, and copy its flags to its own file. > The problem is that it does it only when you use the ncurses interface. > Try it... put a package on hold with the normal tools (dpkg, dselect), then > try 'aptitude upgrade'. Aptitude won't recognize that the package is on > hold.
I tried it with dselect, but the first thing dselect did was select a bunch of packages I didn't want. Does dselect have yet another status list? In any case, I had the same behaviour (about). Somebody should patch this one day. > > What *dpkg* does is the standard. If aptitude doesn't honor it, it's > broken. If aptitude is *inconsistent*, as it is between the command line > and the ncurses interface, it's WORSE. > This is true, but if you only use aptitude it's a minor problem (eg. you can probably not even set a package on hold without the curses interface). greets, Wim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]