Re: dselect vs. apt-get
On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Colin Watson wrote: >On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 07:20:03PM -0600, John Galt wrote: >> On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, tim wrote: >> >my question is due dependencies, are they resolved the same way, either >> >if you use apt-get or dselect? or are there any differences. I have >> >recently made the experience that dselect worked on a specifig update >> >(cdroast) while apt-get gave my dependency problems... >> >> No. For dselect, Suggests are effectively Depends, while for apt, >> Suggests are effectively ignored. > >Wibble? Surely you mean Recommends, not Suggests. (dselect will warn you >about Suggests but not force you into using them.) I use apt, so lost track of the difference :) > -- Sacred cows make the best burgers Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!!!
Re: dselect vs. apt-get
On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 07:20:03PM -0600, John Galt wrote: > On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, tim wrote: > >my question is due dependencies, are they resolved the same way, either > >if you use apt-get or dselect? or are there any differences. I have > >recently made the experience that dselect worked on a specifig update > >(cdroast) while apt-get gave my dependency problems... > > No. For dselect, Suggests are effectively Depends, while for apt, > Suggests are effectively ignored. Wibble? Surely you mean Recommends, not Suggests. (dselect will warn you about Suggests but not force you into using them.) -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dselect vs. apt-get
On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 06:37:54PM -0700, Eric G. Miller wrote: > dselect will generally want to install "Recommends" while apt-get won't. True. > I don't know the internals about when things are called. Both seem to > use their own mechanism for initial dependency resolution and then dpkg > will later insure that the dependencies are met when it does its dirty > work... Well, dselect typically uses the apt back-end as its access method. I believe the primary difference is that dselect maintains its own package database which is based on the one built by apt. Overall, dselect seems to be more robust at handling package dependency conflicts, and is more "expressive" :). For example, it won't just mysteriously hold packages back; it'll tell you exactly what's going on. If you check back in the archives a month or two back, you'll find plenty of posts by Joost that will explain this stuff much better than I can. > Also, if you track woody or sid, you probably want to use "dist-upgrade" > rather than "upgrade" for apt-get. The first will install dependencies > that aren't already installed and remove conflicting packages, whereas > the second will only update installed packages (usually not sufficient > for tracking an unstable branch). I usually use the "-du" options to an > "apt-get dist-upgrade" so I get a clear report of what it intends to do > and that the installation doesn't happen 'til I've got all the packages. I find dselect does a better job for this. -- Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: dselect vs. apt-get
On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 01:01:10AM +0200, tim wrote: > hello > > well I am sorry if this has discussed to death, I didnt find a > comparison. > > I always thought dselect/apt-get are frontend for dpkg. > dselect uses ncurses, apt-get is only command line. dselect offers a > manual dependency resolving while apt-get (mainly) just downloads the > file and calls dpkg... > > my question is due dependencies, are they resolved the same way, either > if you use apt-get or dselect? or are there any differences. I have > recently made the experience that dselect worked on a specifig update > (cdroast) while apt-get gave my dependency problems... > > Is the difference that dselect calls database, once you use it, while > apt-get first calls dpkg and than dpkg calls the database about > dependencies? dselect will generally want to install "Recommends" while apt-get won't. I don't know the internals about when things are called. Both seem to use their own mechanism for initial dependency resolution and then dpkg will later insure that the dependencies are met when it does its dirty work... Also, if you track woody or sid, you probably want to use "dist-upgrade" rather than "upgrade" for apt-get. The first will install dependencies that aren't already installed and remove conflicting packages, whereas the second will only update installed packages (usually not sufficient for tracking an unstable branch). I usually use the "-du" options to an "apt-get dist-upgrade" so I get a clear report of what it intends to do and that the installation doesn't happen 'til I've got all the packages. deity and aptitude are nice frontends as well -- a little buggy yet... -- Eric G. Miller
Re: dselect vs. apt-get
On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, tim wrote: >hello > >well I am sorry if this has discussed to death, I didnt find a >comparison. > >I always thought dselect/apt-get are frontend for dpkg. >dselect uses ncurses, apt-get is only command line. dselect offers a >manual dependency resolving while apt-get (mainly) just downloads the >file and calls dpkg... aptitude and deity are both curses (or X) frontends for apt. >my question is due dependencies, are they resolved the same way, either >if you use apt-get or dselect? or are there any differences. I have >recently made the experience that dselect worked on a specifig update >(cdroast) while apt-get gave my dependency problems... No. For dselect, Suggests are effectively Depends, while for apt, Suggests are effectively ignored. >Is the difference that dselect calls database, once you use it, while >apt-get first calls dpkg and than dpkg calls the database about >dependencies? > > >thanks! > > > -- Sacred cows make the best burgers Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!!!
Re: dselect vs apt-get
Thanks for the feedback...
> (http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch2.html#s2.2). However, it
> only does this up until the first time you exit dselect's "Select"
> screen and accept the choices there. All you should need to do is run
> dselect, turn off all the things it selected for you ('D' might do this?
> Not sure, I used dselect from the start and never ran into this problem
> myself), and then quit. From then on dselect should be in a sane state.
Hard to do. It only gives me the list, and it's a good 100 items, when I
select something then click on install. It says adding...
I'll see what I can do again...
> [Do you mind if I send this on to debian-user? I'm not exactly
Of course, I'll do the same. Dselect is a popular pastime on the list :)
--
"Hey, I think I finally got the hang of i-"
Re: dselect vs apt-get
Defresne Sylvain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >* Peter Jay Salzman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> 3. status of the system and updates >> >> are dselect and apt-get's knowledge of installed packages, package status, >> available packages and provided files the same as each other? > > I guess, since they both use dpkg. apt keeps its own cache of package status, which is in a format that it can read faster than dpkg can read its own. Unless something has gone badly wrong, though (or, in the case of available packages, if you've used 'apt-get update' rather than 'dselect update'), they will be in sync. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dselect vs apt-get
Hello * Peter Jay Salzman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > i've always wondered... > > > 1. equivalency of updating the system > > is dselect's "update" EXACTLY equivalent to apt-get update? does one of > them update the other? if they're not equivalent, how are they different? If you use apt-get method in dselect, then `dselect update' will call `apt-get update'. Nevertheless, `apt-get update' won't update dselect database ... > 2. intelligence of dependencies and conflicts > > are dselect and apt-get equally intelligent when it comes to things like > package dependencies and conflicts? Apt-get don't present you package in `Suggest:' (which can be annoying for vim that suggest vim-rt, for example), while dselect does. > 3. status of the system and updates > > are dselect and apt-get's knowledge of installed packages, package status, > available packages and provided files the same as each other? I guess, since they both use dpkg. But apt-get don't install packages selected in dselect unless you use `dselect-upgrade' action. > i would think that the answers should be yes, yes, and yes. but i've read > things that hint otherwise. I think this is no, no and no. > thanks! > pete Bye -- DEFRESNE Sylvain pgpHjrb4tSNXm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: dselect vs apt
On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 11:28:25AM +0100, Urban Gabor wrote: > Though it might be a lamer question, I would like to know the major > differences between dselect and apt. I do not upgrade my boxes via ftp, I > allways (more or less :-)) ) wait till the new release is assembled in CD > images. Why would I switch to apt? apt is the latest method for updating a Debian system over the net. dselect is a front-end for managing packages, and can use apt as the back-end for downloading and managing the actual installation (i highly recommend this). apt-get is a command-line interface to apt, rather than the curses-dased dselect. Some people despise dselect, but just about everyone likes apt-get. capt is an ncurses-based front-end to apt. i personally prefer dselect. gnome-apt is an X-based front-end to apt. i've never tried it, personally i like a textmode front-end better because it doesn't require messing around to get an app run by root to show up on an X display running as my user. You would switch to apt if you want to download packages from the internet, instead of or in addition to using your CDs. i'd recommend you at least get the slink security updates (i don't know the URL offhand, anyone feel like posting it?), and update to r3 if your CDs aren't there already. -- finger for GPG public key. 16 Nov 1999 - new key generated, please stop using the old. pgpLMpT8rjsgs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: dselect vs apt
On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 07:23:14AM +0700, Oki DZ wrote
>
>
> Urban Gabor wrote:
> >
> > Though it might be a lamer question, I would like to know the major
> > differences between dselect and apt.
>
> dselect is menu based, and apt is command-line based.
> dselect is slightly confusing, and apt is pretty straightforward.
>
> I think xdselect (if there's any such thing) would be a lot neater than
> dselect.
>
> >I do not upgrade my boxes via ftp, I
> > allways (more or less :-)) ) wait till the new release is assembled in CD
> > images. Why would I switch to apt?
>
Apt is better at package ordering - sometimes, depending on what you've
selected, dselect takes a couple of passes to get everything in.
Apt is smarter and faster - most dselect methods work through the entire
package list ("skipping kernel-header-2.0.33\nskipping etc. etc."), apt
works through only those packages that will be installed or removed.
Apt is more flexible - with apt you can use CDs, FTP sites and local package
repositories as sources in a single operation, and apt will seamlessly get
the packages you select from wherever is most convenient (based on the order
in which the sources appear in /etc/apt/sources.list).
Dselect can do apt, but apt can't do dselect - Apt provides a dselect access
method, so you can do all your source configuration with apt and then get
the benefit of both the unified, screen-oriented dselect interface you're
used to and the convenience of just going (e.g.)
# apt-get install xemacs20
when you want to install a new package.
John P.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Oh - I - you know - my job is to fear everything." - Bill Gates in Denmark
RE: dselect vs apt
It appears Corel/Debian Linux offers some X graphical interface to deslect. Check out: http://linux.corel.com/products/linux_os/highlights.htm paul -Original Message- From: Oki DZ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 18, 1999 7:23 PM To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: dselect vs apt Urban Gabor wrote: > > Though it might be a lamer question, I would like to know the major > differences between dselect and apt. dselect is menu based, and apt is command-line based. dselect is slightly confusing, and apt is pretty straightforward. I think xdselect (if there's any such thing) would be a lot neater than dselect. >I do not upgrade my boxes via ftp, I > allways (more or less :-)) ) wait till the new release is assembled in CD > images. Why would I switch to apt? I always do the installation using the Net, 'cause I don't have the CDs yet... Oki -- Shells Command shells. Friendly user interfaces for beginners. http://www.debian.org/Packages/stable/ -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
Re: dselect vs apt
Urban Gabor wrote: > > Though it might be a lamer question, I would like to know the major > differences between dselect and apt. dselect is menu based, and apt is command-line based. dselect is slightly confusing, and apt is pretty straightforward. I think xdselect (if there's any such thing) would be a lot neater than dselect. >I do not upgrade my boxes via ftp, I > allways (more or less :-)) ) wait till the new release is assembled in CD > images. Why would I switch to apt? I always do the installation using the Net, 'cause I don't have the CDs yet... Oki -- Shells Command shells. Friendly user interfaces for beginners. http://www.debian.org/Packages/stable/
Re: Dselect vs apt
It is your choice. I understand that using apt-cdrom will let you use entries for apt to read off of CD, but dselect has its nice features too -- eg, you can see multiple packages at a time (not enough for my tastes, but you really only need it while instlaling.. :) On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 07:24:00AM +0200, Urban Gabor wrote: > Which tool is recommanded for a box not connected to the internet. I am > isntalling from CDs. > > Gabor Urban --- Lufthansa Systems Hungaria KfT > mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel : (36)-1-431-2949 Fax :(36)-1-431-2977 > I am not a cat to play with the mouse. > > > -- > Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null -- Seth Arnold | http://www.willamette.edu/~sarnold/ Hate spam? See http://maps.vix.com/rbl/ for help Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!
