Re: [DNG] apt-get vs. aptitude ?

[KatolaZ]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 04:36:26AM +, hellekin wrote:

[cut]

> 
> But aptitude is far from a great GUI.  I'm confused between apt,
> apt-get, aptitude, dpkg, apt-cache, etc.  That's a lot of complicated
> programs with divergent interfaces that overlap a lot.  I'd like a
> simple interface to the system packages that doesn't require looking at
> the manual or waiting 10 years to master.
> 

But apt is not "a lot of complicated programs" at all. I am confident
that in more than 99.6% of the times a "normal" Debian/Devuan user
will need to invoke just two commands (apt-cache and apt-get), in one
of these five fashions:

- apt-cache search [PATTERN]
  (this searches for PATTERN in package names and descriptions)

- apt-get install [PACKAGE-NAME]
  (well...)

- apt-get remove [PACKAGE-NAME]
  (...)

- apt-get update
  (update the list of packages from the repo)

- apt-get upgrade 
  (upgrade your system installing the last available version of each
  of them)


And both apt-cache and apt-get (as all the other tools in apt-utils)
have the same interface:

[options] 

That's it. No diverging interfaces. No overlaps. No need to wait 10
years to "master" them.  Just two commands, with function names spelt
in current english (I believe there was even a project, back in the
days, to localise the names of apt functions...)

If you have bash_completion enabled, "apt-get install" and "apt-get
remove" are a nobrainer. If you stay with the same (stable) release
and don't mix-up repos from different releases, you will never ever
have a single reason to use dpkg. If you like to mess-up with
different repos, aptitude will not save you anyway, and you have to
revert to dpkg. It's true that apt-get has thousands of options, and
you might need apt-file if you are looking for the package that
provides a specific file, but those account for the <0.4% of the
remaining use cases. Actually, I have never ever had to use dpkg
directly to fix problems in official packages, despite having used
almost exclusively Debian testing. So in my case that 0.4% accounts
just for the occasional calls to apt-file, and to "apt-get
dist-upgrade", but the last ones become very rare if you remain in a
stable branch.

If there is something I have learnt using unix systems is that things
look complicated and hard only until you don't know them :)

HND

KatolaZ

-- 
[ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ --- GLUG Catania -- Freaknet Medialab ]
[ me [at] katolaz.homeunix.net -- http://katolaz.homeunix.net -- ]
[ GNU/Linux User:#325780/ICQ UIN: #258332181/GPG key ID 0B5F062F ]
[ Fingerprint: 8E59 D6AA 445E FDB4 A153 3D5A 5F20 B3AE 0B5F 062F ]
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] apt-get vs. aptitude ?

[hellekin]

On 04/16/2016 08:13 PM, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 16/04/2016 19:47, Noel Torres a écrit :
>>
>> I regularly use aptitude's CUI (I use to name it as text-mode GUI).
>> Mostly because it has that wonderful "Mark as automatically installed"
>> mode, that allows packages to be more easily updated or removed. 
> 
> This feature also exists in synaptic :-)
> 

I like `l`imiting the package view and `/`searching for specific
packages.  How's that in Synaptic?  `e`xamine mode allows me to explore
dependencies in a quite efficient way.  Exploring new packages,
traversing their dependencies, etc. is quite instructive.

But aptitude is far from a great GUI.  I'm confused between apt,
apt-get, aptitude, dpkg, apt-cache, etc.  That's a lot of complicated
programs with divergent interfaces that overlap a lot.  I'd like a
simple interface to the system packages that doesn't require looking at
the manual or waiting 10 years to master.

Something like git.  No wait, self-documenting, not too many commmands:
a high-level interface with a complete API for scripting under the hood.
 Interactive mode needs to be helpful to humans.

Any recommended aptitude settings that you feel should be default?

==
hk

-- 
 _ _ We are free to share code and we code to share freedom
(_X_)yne Foundation, Free Culture Foundry * https://www.dyne.org/donate/

___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] apt-get vs. aptitude ?

[Noel Torres]

Nate Bargmann  escribió:


* On 2016 16 Apr 15:15 -0500, Didier Kryn wrote:

Le 16/04/2016 19:47, Noel Torres a écrit :
>
>I regularly use aptitude's CUI (I use to name it as text-mode GUI). Mostly
>because it has that wonderful "Mark as automatically installed" mode, that
>allows packages to be more easily updated or removed.

This feature also exists in synaptic :-)


I manage several boxes with Aptitude's CUI over an SSH session.  I'm
not always someplace where X forwarding would be feasible.  In fact, I
have X forwarding disabled.

- Nate


Same here. I prefer text-mode GUI for Aptitude, because I also do it  
on servers with no X at all


Regards

Noel
er Envite


bina2iiCqNl9E.bin
Description: Clave PGP pública


pgpfbgQQi4FIk.pgp
Description: Firma digital PGP
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] apt-get vs. aptitude ?

[Nate Bargmann]

* On 2016 16 Apr 16:04 -0500, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 10:19:44PM +0200, Didier Kryn wrote:
> > Le 16/04/2016 19:47, Noel Torres a écrit :
> > >
> > >I regularly use aptitude's CUI (I use to name it as text-mode
> > >GUI). Mostly because it has that wonderful "Mark as automatically
> > >installed" mode, that allows packages to be more easily updated or
> > >removed.
> > 
> > I'm afraid I've forged the acronym CUI sometimes in 2015, while
> > reading/writing this mailing list. Or I've read it somewhere and I
> > just repeated it without noticing. Anyway it's shorter than
> > "text-mode GUI" :-)
> > 
> 
> I think the usual acronym to indicate "an interface based on ncurses"
> is TUI, which obviously stands for Text-based User Interface.

Either term is understandable to me.  I do see erroneous references to
such interfaces as CLI around the Web.  To be sure, many [TC]UI have an
amount of CLI coded into them.

- Nate

-- 

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] apt-get vs. aptitude ?

[Nate Bargmann]

* On 2016 16 Apr 15:15 -0500, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 16/04/2016 19:47, Noel Torres a écrit :
> >
> >I regularly use aptitude's CUI (I use to name it as text-mode GUI). Mostly
> >because it has that wonderful "Mark as automatically installed" mode, that
> >allows packages to be more easily updated or removed.
> 
> This feature also exists in synaptic :-)

I manage several boxes with Aptitude's CUI over an SSH session.  I'm
not always someplace where X forwarding would be feasible.  In fact, I
have X forwarding disabled.

- Nate

-- 

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] apt-get vs. aptitude ?

[KatolaZ]

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 10:19:44PM +0200, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 16/04/2016 19:47, Noel Torres a écrit :
> >
> >I regularly use aptitude's CUI (I use to name it as text-mode
> >GUI). Mostly because it has that wonderful "Mark as automatically
> >installed" mode, that allows packages to be more easily updated or
> >removed.
> 
> I'm afraid I've forged the acronym CUI sometimes in 2015, while
> reading/writing this mailing list. Or I've read it somewhere and I
> just repeated it without noticing. Anyway it's shorter than
> "text-mode GUI" :-)
> 

I think the usual acronym to indicate "an interface based on ncurses"
is TUI, which obviously stands for Text-based User Interface.

My2Cents

-- 
[ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ --- GLUG Catania -- Freaknet Medialab ]
[ me [at] katolaz.homeunix.net -- http://katolaz.homeunix.net -- ]
[ GNU/Linux User:#325780/ICQ UIN: #258332181/GPG key ID 0B5F062F ]
[ Fingerprint: 8E59 D6AA 445E FDB4 A153 3D5A 5F20 B3AE 0B5F 062F ]
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] apt-get vs. aptitude ?

[Didier Kryn]

Le 16/04/2016 19:47, Noel Torres a écrit :


I regularly use aptitude's CUI (I use to name it as text-mode GUI). 
Mostly because it has that wonderful "Mark as automatically installed" 
mode, that allows packages to be more easily updated or removed. 


I'm afraid I've forged the acronym CUI sometimes in 2015, while 
reading/writing this mailing list. Or I've read it somewhere and I just 
repeated it without noticing. Anyway it's shorter than "text-mode GUI" :-)


Didier

___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] apt-get vs. aptitude ?

[Noel Torres]

Didier Kryn  escribió:

You guys all talk of aptitude as a CLI. But it is essentially a  
CUI (Curses User Interface) supposed to give you diverse views of  
the status of your packages and of what you are doing. I could never  
make any sense of this CUI, although I know people who do. I've  
completely given up on this and use only apt-get and synaptic.  
Synaptic is a GUI, very straightforward to use. I think aptitude  
could be as easy  but it has been developped by geeks for their own  
use without care for the general admin and without a sensible  
documentation.


I regularly use aptitude's CUI (I use to name it as text-mode GUI).  
Mostly because it has that wonderful "Mark as automatically installed"  
mode, that allows packages to be more easily updated or removed.


Regards

Noel
er Envite


binsvcpBeyxCG.bin
Description: Clave PGP pública
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] apt-get vs. aptitude ?

[Svante Signell]

On Sat, 2016-04-16 at 10:22 +0100, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 04:25:20PM -0500, dev wrote:
> > 
> > On 04/15/2016 03:36 PM, Linux O'Beardly wrote:
> > > For what it's worth, much of the apt vs aptitude is preference
> > > and
> > > opinion.  However, aptitude does bit better of a job resolving
> > > dependencies and preventing them from breaking your system.
> > 
> > Yes, That's what I've always read so I have always used aptitude
> > but
> > in this instance I have packages that will not upgrade via
> > aptitude.
> > I mention this case specifically as the Debian docs[1] say
> > "aptitude
> > is the recommended package manager for Debian".
> > 
> 
> I might be a bit old-fashioned, but I don't understand anything
> besides dpkg, dselect, apt-get, and apt-cache. And I have never felt
> the need for anything else...

Me too :D

___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] apt-get vs. aptitude ?

[Rainer Weikusat]

dev  writes:

[...]


> #
> # apt-get upgrade  <--<<  kernel 2.6.32 will NOT install, updates will

[...]

> The following packages have been kept back:
>   proxmox-ve-2.6.32
> The following packages will be upgraded:
>   base-files libnvpair1 libpve-common-perl libuutil1 libwbclient0
> libzfs2 libzpool2 openssh-client openssh-server samba-common smbclient
>   ssh tzdata

[...]

> # apt-get dist-upgrade <--<< kernel will install, updates will

[...]

> The following NEW packages will be installed:
>   pve-kernel-2.6.32-45-pve
> The following packages will be upgraded:
>   base-files libnvpair1 libpve-common-perl libuutil1 libwbclient0
> libzfs2 libzpool2 openssh-client openssh-server proxmox-ve-2.6.32
>   samba-common smbclient ssh tzdata

[...]

'upgrade' is supposed to update already installed packages but must not
install new packages or remove installed packages. Hence, for the first
example, proxmox-ve-2.6.23 is not upgraded because it depends on a kernel
package which isn't installed.

'dist-upgrade' should update everything and 'intelligently' handle
changed dependencies, ie install new depedencies if that enables an
existing package to be upgraded (pve-kernel-2.6.32-45-pve/
proxmox-ve-2.6.32) or remove installed packages if they conflict with
to-be-installed ones and nothing depends on them.

As far as I remember (I've neve user aptitude), older version of
aptitude could solve some dependency conflicts older versions of apt-get
couldn't handle because aptitude could temporarily 'break' a dependency
by removing a package to resolve a conflict provided a to be installed
package would 'unbreak' it again. But meanwhile, apt-get can
(reportedly) do this as well.
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] apt-get vs. aptitude ?

[Rainer Weikusat]

Nate Bargmann  writes:

> Interesting.  I've been using Aptitude in CUI mode since at least 2000
> or so and it seems straightforward and reasonably intuitive to me.  It
> is miles ahead of dselect which it replaced.  Now that was a horror of a
> UI.  Of course, a dselect lover or two will be along tell me I'm wrong.
> :-)

"You're wrong!"

[SCNR]


___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] apt-get vs. aptitude ?

[Nate Bargmann]

Interesting.  I've been using Aptitude in CUI mode since at least 2000
or so and it seems straightforward and reasonably intuitive to me.  It
is miles ahead of dselect which it replaced.  Now that was a horror of a
UI.  Of course, a dselect lover or two will be along tell me I'm wrong.
:-)

I've probably used the CLI of Aptitude so few times that I could count
them on one hand.  I didn't even know it had a CLI until I saw it
mentioned on debian-user until years after using its CUI mode.  In fact,
I saw message from at least one user who didn't even know it had a CUI
mode!  Sometimes it is faster to use apt-get for some one thing or
another instead of Aptitude.

- Nate

-- 

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] apt-get vs. aptitude ?

[Dave Turner]

On 16/04/16 09:46, Dave Turner wrote:

On 15/04/16 22:25, dev wrote:


On 04/15/2016 03:36 PM, Linux O'Beardly wrote:

For what it's worth, much of the apt vs aptitude is preference and
opinion.  However, aptitude does bit better of a job resolving
dependencies and preventing them from breaking your system.


Yes, That's what I've always read so I have always used aptitude but 
in this instance I have packages that will not upgrade via aptitude. 
I mention this case specifically as the Debian docs[1] say "aptitude 
is the recommended package manager for Debian".


I post this question with the intent to investigate why I might need 
to familiarize myself more with APT as it's evident there are use 
cases where aptitude cannot get the job done. I have struggled with 
situations similar to this only rarely and could have possibly saved 
my self some time knowing the nuances of APT (Debian indeed has one 
of the most diverse set of package management tools around). With 
that in mind, consider the following on this Debian Wheezy based 
system (apologies in advance for the length of this post, but it 
seems pertinent to include)...



#
# apt-get upgrade  <--<<  kernel 2.6.32 will NOT install, updates will
#
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following packages have been kept back:
  proxmox-ve-2.6.32
The following packages will be upgraded:
  base-files libnvpair1 libpve-common-perl libuutil1 libwbclient0 
libzfs2 libzpool2 openssh-client openssh-server samba-common smbclient

  ssh tzdata
13 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
Need to get 8975 kB of archives.
After this operation, 1438 kB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue [Y/n]?


#
# apt-get dist-upgrade <--<< kernel will install, updates will
#
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade... Done
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  pve-kernel-2.6.32-45-pve
The following packages will be upgraded:
  base-files libnvpair1 libpve-common-perl libuutil1 libwbclient0 
libzfs2 libzpool2 openssh-client openssh-server proxmox-ve-2.6.32

  samba-common smbclient ssh tzdata
14 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 46.2 MB of archives.
After this operation, 1438 kB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue [Y/n]?


#
# aptitude upgrade  <--<< kernel will install, updates will NOT
#
Resolving dependencies...
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  pve-kernel-2.6.32-45-pve{a}
The following packages will be upgraded:
  base-files libnvpair1 libpve-common-perl libuutil1 libwbclient0 
libzfs2 libzpool2 openssh-client openssh-server proxmox-ve-2.6.32

  samba-common smbclient ssh tzdata
The following packages are RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed:
  openssh-blacklist openssh-blacklist-extra samba-common-bin
14 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 46.2 MB of archives. After unpacking 1438 kB will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]


#
# aptitude safe-upgrade <--<< kernel will install, updates will NOT
#
Resolving dependencies...
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  pve-kernel-2.6.32-45-pve{a}
The following packages will be upgraded:
  base-files libnvpair1 libpve-common-perl libuutil1 libwbclient0 
libzfs2 libzpool2 openssh-client openssh-server proxmox-ve-2.6.32

  samba-common smbclient ssh tzdata
The following packages are RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed:
  openssh-blacklist openssh-blacklist-extra samba-common-bin
14 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 46.2 MB of archives. After unpacking 1438 kB will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]


#
# aptitude full-upgrade <--<< kernel will install, updates will NOT
#
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  pve-kernel-2.6.32-45-pve{a}
The following packages will be upgraded:
  base-files libnvpair1 libpve-common-perl libuutil1 libwbclient0 
libzfs2 libzpool2 openssh-client openssh-server proxmox-ve-2.6.32

  samba-common smbclient ssh tzdata
The following packages are RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed:
  openssh-blacklist openssh-blacklist-extra samba-common-bin
14 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 46.2 MB of archives. After unpacking 1438 kB will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]


[1] https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-uptodate.en.html
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng


I use apt-get upgrade and apt-get dist-upgrade.
For anything that apt-get refuses to do - such as your example where 
the kernel has been kept back - I do sudo aptitude which makes it very 
easy to investigate what is going on.
For the 'RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed' aptitude will let you 

Re: [DNG] apt-get vs. aptitude ?

[KatolaZ]

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 06:32:01PM +0900, Simon Walter wrote:

[cut]

> 
> Same here. I tried to use the recommended aptitude a couple times
> and just got lost.
> 

I have tried to use the recommended aptitude a couple of times, and
just got a lot of trash installed :D

In those cases, debfoster was a bliss.

HND

KatolaZ

-- 
[ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ --- GLUG Catania -- Freaknet Medialab ]
[ me [at] katolaz.homeunix.net -- http://katolaz.homeunix.net -- ]
[ GNU/Linux User:#325780/ICQ UIN: #258332181/GPG key ID 0B5F062F ]
[ Fingerprint: 8E59 D6AA 445E FDB4 A153 3D5A 5F20 B3AE 0B5F 062F ]
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] apt-get vs. aptitude ?

[Simon Walter]

On 04/16/2016 06:22 PM, KatolaZ wrote:

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 04:25:20PM -0500, dev wrote:

On 04/15/2016 03:36 PM, Linux O'Beardly wrote:

For what it's worth, much of the apt vs aptitude is preference and
opinion.  However, aptitude does bit better of a job resolving
dependencies and preventing them from breaking your system.

Yes, That's what I've always read so I have always used aptitude but
in this instance I have packages that will not upgrade via aptitude.
I mention this case specifically as the Debian docs[1] say "aptitude
is the recommended package manager for Debian".


I might be a bit old-fashioned, but I don't understand anything
besides dpkg, dselect, apt-get, and apt-cache. And I have never felt
the need for anything else...



Same here. I tried to use the recommended aptitude a couple times and 
just got lost.


___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] apt-get vs. aptitude ?

[KatolaZ]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 04:25:20PM -0500, dev wrote:
> 
> On 04/15/2016 03:36 PM, Linux O'Beardly wrote:
> >For what it's worth, much of the apt vs aptitude is preference and
> >opinion.  However, aptitude does bit better of a job resolving
> >dependencies and preventing them from breaking your system.
> 
> Yes, That's what I've always read so I have always used aptitude but
> in this instance I have packages that will not upgrade via aptitude.
> I mention this case specifically as the Debian docs[1] say "aptitude
> is the recommended package manager for Debian".
> 

I might be a bit old-fashioned, but I don't understand anything
besides dpkg, dselect, apt-get, and apt-cache. And I have never felt
the need for anything else...

HND

KatolaZ

-- 
[ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ --- GLUG Catania -- Freaknet Medialab ]
[ me [at] katolaz.homeunix.net -- http://katolaz.homeunix.net -- ]
[ GNU/Linux User:#325780/ICQ UIN: #258332181/GPG key ID 0B5F062F ]
[ Fingerprint: 8E59 D6AA 445E FDB4 A153 3D5A 5F20 B3AE 0B5F 062F ]
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] apt-get vs. aptitude ?

[Dave Turner]

On 15/04/16 22:25, dev wrote:


On 04/15/2016 03:36 PM, Linux O'Beardly wrote:

For what it's worth, much of the apt vs aptitude is preference and
opinion.  However, aptitude does bit better of a job resolving
dependencies and preventing them from breaking your system.


Yes, That's what I've always read so I have always used aptitude but 
in this instance I have packages that will not upgrade via aptitude. I 
mention this case specifically as the Debian docs[1] say "aptitude is 
the recommended package manager for Debian".


I post this question with the intent to investigate why I might need 
to familiarize myself more with APT as it's evident there are use 
cases where aptitude cannot get the job done. I have struggled with 
situations similar to this only rarely and could have possibly saved 
my self some time knowing the nuances of APT (Debian indeed has one of 
the most diverse set of package management tools around). With that in 
mind, consider the following on this Debian Wheezy based system 
(apologies in advance for the length of this post, but it seems 
pertinent to include)...



#
# apt-get upgrade  <--<<  kernel 2.6.32 will NOT install, updates will
#
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following packages have been kept back:
  proxmox-ve-2.6.32
The following packages will be upgraded:
  base-files libnvpair1 libpve-common-perl libuutil1 libwbclient0 
libzfs2 libzpool2 openssh-client openssh-server samba-common smbclient

  ssh tzdata
13 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
Need to get 8975 kB of archives.
After this operation, 1438 kB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue [Y/n]?


#
# apt-get dist-upgrade <--<< kernel will install, updates will
#
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade... Done
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  pve-kernel-2.6.32-45-pve
The following packages will be upgraded:
  base-files libnvpair1 libpve-common-perl libuutil1 libwbclient0 
libzfs2 libzpool2 openssh-client openssh-server proxmox-ve-2.6.32

  samba-common smbclient ssh tzdata
14 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 46.2 MB of archives.
After this operation, 1438 kB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue [Y/n]?


#
# aptitude upgrade  <--<< kernel will install, updates will NOT
#
Resolving dependencies...
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  pve-kernel-2.6.32-45-pve{a}
The following packages will be upgraded:
  base-files libnvpair1 libpve-common-perl libuutil1 libwbclient0 
libzfs2 libzpool2 openssh-client openssh-server proxmox-ve-2.6.32

  samba-common smbclient ssh tzdata
The following packages are RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed:
  openssh-blacklist openssh-blacklist-extra samba-common-bin
14 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 46.2 MB of archives. After unpacking 1438 kB will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]


#
# aptitude safe-upgrade <--<< kernel will install, updates will NOT
#
Resolving dependencies...
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  pve-kernel-2.6.32-45-pve{a}
The following packages will be upgraded:
  base-files libnvpair1 libpve-common-perl libuutil1 libwbclient0 
libzfs2 libzpool2 openssh-client openssh-server proxmox-ve-2.6.32

  samba-common smbclient ssh tzdata
The following packages are RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed:
  openssh-blacklist openssh-blacklist-extra samba-common-bin
14 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 46.2 MB of archives. After unpacking 1438 kB will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]


#
# aptitude full-upgrade <--<< kernel will install, updates will NOT
#
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  pve-kernel-2.6.32-45-pve{a}
The following packages will be upgraded:
  base-files libnvpair1 libpve-common-perl libuutil1 libwbclient0 
libzfs2 libzpool2 openssh-client openssh-server proxmox-ve-2.6.32

  samba-common smbclient ssh tzdata
The following packages are RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed:
  openssh-blacklist openssh-blacklist-extra samba-common-bin
14 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 46.2 MB of archives. After unpacking 1438 kB will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]


[1] https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-uptodate.en.html
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng


I use apt-get upgrade and apt-get dist-upgrade.
For anything that apt-get refuses to do - such as your example where the 
kernel has been kept back - I do sudo aptitude which makes it very easy 
to investigate what is going on.
For the 'RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed' aptitude will let you 
install them if you want to.
I rarely 

Re: [DNG] apt-get vs. aptitude ?

[Didier Kryn]

Le 15/04/2016 23:25, dev a écrit :


On 04/15/2016 03:36 PM, Linux O'Beardly wrote:

For what it's worth, much of the apt vs aptitude is preference and
opinion.  However, aptitude does bit better of a job resolving
dependencies and preventing them from breaking your system.


Yes, That's what I've always read so I have always used aptitude but 
in this instance I have packages that will not upgrade via aptitude. I 
mention this case specifically as the Debian docs[1] say "aptitude is 
the recommended package manager for Debian".


I post this question with the intent to investigate why I might need 
to familiarize myself more with APT as it's evident there are use 
cases where aptitude cannot get the job done. I have struggled with 
situations similar to this only rarely and could have possibly saved 
my self some time knowing the nuances of APT (Debian indeed has one of 
the most diverse set of package management tools around). With that in 
mind, consider the following on this Debian Wheezy based system 
(apologies in advance for the length of this post, but it seems 
pertinent to include)...



#
# apt-get upgrade  <--<<  kernel 2.6.32 will NOT install, updates will
#
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following packages have been kept back:
  proxmox-ve-2.6.32
The following packages will be upgraded:
  base-files libnvpair1 libpve-common-perl libuutil1 libwbclient0 
libzfs2 libzpool2 openssh-client openssh-server samba-common smbclient

  ssh tzdata
13 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
Need to get 8975 kB of archives.
After this operation, 1438 kB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue [Y/n]?


#
# apt-get dist-upgrade <--<< kernel will install, updates will
#
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade... Done
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  pve-kernel-2.6.32-45-pve
The following packages will be upgraded:
  base-files libnvpair1 libpve-common-perl libuutil1 libwbclient0 
libzfs2 libzpool2 openssh-client openssh-server proxmox-ve-2.6.32

  samba-common smbclient ssh tzdata
14 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 46.2 MB of archives.
After this operation, 1438 kB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue [Y/n]?


#
# aptitude upgrade  <--<< kernel will install, updates will NOT
#
Resolving dependencies...
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  pve-kernel-2.6.32-45-pve{a}
The following packages will be upgraded:
  base-files libnvpair1 libpve-common-perl libuutil1 libwbclient0 
libzfs2 libzpool2 openssh-client openssh-server proxmox-ve-2.6.32

  samba-common smbclient ssh tzdata
The following packages are RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed:
  openssh-blacklist openssh-blacklist-extra samba-common-bin
14 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 46.2 MB of archives. After unpacking 1438 kB will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]


#
# aptitude safe-upgrade <--<< kernel will install, updates will NOT
#
Resolving dependencies...
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  pve-kernel-2.6.32-45-pve{a}
The following packages will be upgraded:
  base-files libnvpair1 libpve-common-perl libuutil1 libwbclient0 
libzfs2 libzpool2 openssh-client openssh-server proxmox-ve-2.6.32

  samba-common smbclient ssh tzdata
The following packages are RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed:
  openssh-blacklist openssh-blacklist-extra samba-common-bin
14 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 46.2 MB of archives. After unpacking 1438 kB will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]


#
# aptitude full-upgrade <--<< kernel will install, updates will NOT
#
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  pve-kernel-2.6.32-45-pve{a}
The following packages will be upgraded:
  base-files libnvpair1 libpve-common-perl libuutil1 libwbclient0 
libzfs2 libzpool2 openssh-client openssh-server proxmox-ve-2.6.32

  samba-common smbclient ssh tzdata
The following packages are RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed:
  openssh-blacklist openssh-blacklist-extra samba-common-bin
14 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 46.2 MB of archives. After unpacking 1438 kB will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]



You guys all talk of aptitude as a CLI. But it is essentially a CUI 
(Curses User Interface) supposed to give you diverse views of the status 
of your packages and of what you are doing. I could never make any sense 
of this CUI, although I know people who do. I've completely given up on 
this and use only apt-get and synaptic. Synaptic is a GUI, very 
straightforward to use. I think aptitude could be as easy  but it has 
been developped by geeks for their own use without care for the general 
admin and without a sensible documentation.


   

Re: [DNG] apt-get vs. aptitude ?

[dev]

On 04/15/2016 03:36 PM, Linux O'Beardly wrote:

For what it's worth, much of the apt vs aptitude is preference and
opinion.  However, aptitude does bit better of a job resolving
dependencies and preventing them from breaking your system.


Yes, That's what I've always read so I have always used aptitude but in 
this instance I have packages that will not upgrade via aptitude. I 
mention this case specifically as the Debian docs[1] say "aptitude is 
the recommended package manager for Debian".


I post this question with the intent to investigate why I might need to 
familiarize myself more with APT as it's evident there are use cases 
where aptitude cannot get the job done. I have struggled with situations 
similar to this only rarely and could have possibly saved my self some 
time knowing the nuances of APT (Debian indeed has one of the most 
diverse set of package management tools around). With that in mind, 
consider the following on this Debian Wheezy based system (apologies in 
advance for the length of this post, but it seems pertinent to include)...



#
# apt-get upgrade  <--<<  kernel 2.6.32 will NOT install, updates will
#
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following packages have been kept back:
  proxmox-ve-2.6.32
The following packages will be upgraded:
  base-files libnvpair1 libpve-common-perl libuutil1 libwbclient0 
libzfs2 libzpool2 openssh-client openssh-server samba-common smbclient

  ssh tzdata
13 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
Need to get 8975 kB of archives.
After this operation, 1438 kB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue [Y/n]?


#
# apt-get dist-upgrade <--<< kernel will install, updates will
#
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade... Done
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  pve-kernel-2.6.32-45-pve
The following packages will be upgraded:
  base-files libnvpair1 libpve-common-perl libuutil1 libwbclient0 
libzfs2 libzpool2 openssh-client openssh-server proxmox-ve-2.6.32

  samba-common smbclient ssh tzdata
14 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 46.2 MB of archives.
After this operation, 1438 kB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue [Y/n]?


#
# aptitude upgrade  <--<< kernel will install, updates will NOT
#
Resolving dependencies...
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  pve-kernel-2.6.32-45-pve{a}
The following packages will be upgraded:
  base-files libnvpair1 libpve-common-perl libuutil1 libwbclient0 
libzfs2 libzpool2 openssh-client openssh-server proxmox-ve-2.6.32

  samba-common smbclient ssh tzdata
The following packages are RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed:
  openssh-blacklist openssh-blacklist-extra samba-common-bin
14 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 46.2 MB of archives. After unpacking 1438 kB will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]


#
# aptitude safe-upgrade <--<< kernel will install, updates will NOT
#
Resolving dependencies...
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  pve-kernel-2.6.32-45-pve{a}
The following packages will be upgraded:
  base-files libnvpair1 libpve-common-perl libuutil1 libwbclient0 
libzfs2 libzpool2 openssh-client openssh-server proxmox-ve-2.6.32

  samba-common smbclient ssh tzdata
The following packages are RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed:
  openssh-blacklist openssh-blacklist-extra samba-common-bin
14 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 46.2 MB of archives. After unpacking 1438 kB will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]


#
# aptitude full-upgrade <--<< kernel will install, updates will NOT
#
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  pve-kernel-2.6.32-45-pve{a}
The following packages will be upgraded:
  base-files libnvpair1 libpve-common-perl libuutil1 libwbclient0 
libzfs2 libzpool2 openssh-client openssh-server proxmox-ve-2.6.32

  samba-common smbclient ssh tzdata
The following packages are RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed:
  openssh-blacklist openssh-blacklist-extra samba-common-bin
14 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 46.2 MB of archives. After unpacking 1438 kB will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]


[1] https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-uptodate.en.html
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] apt-get vs. aptitude ?

[Linux O'Beardly]

For what it's worth, much of the apt vs aptitude is preference and
opinion.  However, aptitude does bit better of a job resolving dependencies
and preventing them from breaking your system. I personally have never been
a fan of aptitude, so I stick to the standard apt-get
update/upgrade/dist-upgrade.  Has this ever bitten me?  Absolutely.  Has it
ever put me in a situation I couldn't recover from?  Never.  So, YMMV, and
it will absolutely vary, but you just need to figure out what you're
comfortable with and how much work you're willing to put into your
systems.  There is no right or wrong way.  There is just getting it done,
or not done.  At the end of the day, if you got it done, whatever "it" may
be, then you're probably on the right track.  And of course, if you ever
get into a pinch, you always have the community to fall back on.

Linux O'Beardly
@LinuxOBeardly
http://o.beard.ly
linux.obear...@gmail.com

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 3:05 PM, dev  wrote:

> Hi all,
> I was wondering if anyone could offer some clarity on how best to apply
> patches on Debian derived systems? There are so many options across apt-get
> and aptitude... I cannot make sense of them all:
>
>   apt-get upgrade
>   apt-get dist-upgrade
>   apt-get safe-upgrade
>   aptitude upgrade
>   aptitude safe-upgrade
>   aptitude full-upgrade
>
> The man pages tell about the different options, but I don't know if
> removing packages to resolve dependencies is a good thing or not.
>
> Then I found the link below[1] explaining that 'aptitude' is the tool to
> use on Debian while other information[2] suggests that 'apt-get' is the
> tool to use so I'm confused and hoping some of you generous folks could
> provide some insight here or at least admit you are as confused as I am.
>
> Thanks
>
> [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-uptodate.en.html
> [2]
> http://askubuntu.com/questions/81585/what-is-dist-upgrade-and-why-does-it-upgrade-more-than-upgrade
> ___
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@lists.dyne.org
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
>
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] apt-get vs. aptitude ?

[Simon Hobson]

dev  wrote:

> I was wondering if anyone could offer some clarity on how best to apply 
> patches on Debian derived systems? There are so many options across apt-get 
> and aptitude... I cannot make sense of them all:
> 
>  apt-get upgrade
>  apt-get dist-upgrade
>  apt-get safe-upgrade
>  aptitude upgrade
>  aptitude safe-upgrade
>  aptitude full-upgrade
> 
> The man pages tell about the different options, but I don't know if removing 
> packages to resolve dependencies is a good thing or not.
> 
> Then I found the link below[1] explaining that 'aptitude' is the tool to use 
> on Debian while other information[2] suggests that 'apt-get' is the tool to 
> use so I'm confused and hoping some of you generous folks could provide some 
> insight here or at least admit you are as confused as I am.

I've never felt any need to depart from apt-get. Normally just "apt-get update 
&& apt-get upgrade" - or dist-upgrade in situations like the one in the second 
link you posted.
As to removing packages, when that will only happen if one is no longer needed 
- well actually if it needs to be removed. If a package is just "no longer 
needed" then apt will spit out a notice to that effect.

___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] apt-get vs. aptitude ?

[Mitt Green]

dev wrote:


I was wondering if anyone could offer some clarity on how best to
apply patches on Debian derived systems? There are so many options
across apt-get and aptitude... I cannot make sense of them all:

  apt-get upgrade
  apt-get dist-upgrade
  apt-get safe-upgrade
  aptitude upgrade
  aptitude safe-upgrade
  aptitude full-upgrade


aptitude is a front-end to the APT. apt(-get) dist-upgrade
"intelligently" manages dependencies, e.g. from recent update
on Sid: libpng12-dev was replaced by libpng-dev; with simple
apt upgrade libpng12-dev would be kept, but with dist-upgrade
it is being replaced.
"apt safe-upgrade" doesn't exist, only "aptitude safe-upgrade";
the first is comparable to
"aptitude --no-new-installs safe-upgrade".

In other words, "aptitude safe-upgrade" upgrades and can install
new packages, but never removes anything; "apt upgrade" never
installs or removes unmet dependencies; "aptitude full-upgrade"
is similar to "apt dist-upgrade".

Cheers,
Mitt
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

[DNG] apt-get vs. aptitude ?

[dev]

Hi all,
I was wondering if anyone could offer some clarity on how best to apply 
patches on Debian derived systems? There are so many options across 
apt-get and aptitude... I cannot make sense of them all:


  apt-get upgrade
  apt-get dist-upgrade
  apt-get safe-upgrade
  aptitude upgrade
  aptitude safe-upgrade
  aptitude full-upgrade

The man pages tell about the different options, but I don't know if 
removing packages to resolve dependencies is a good thing or not.


Then I found the link below[1] explaining that 'aptitude' is the tool to 
use on Debian while other information[2] suggests that 'apt-get' is the 
tool to use so I'm confused and hoping some of you generous folks could 
provide some insight here or at least admit you are as confused as I am.


Thanks

[1] https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-uptodate.en.html
[2] 
http://askubuntu.com/questions/81585/what-is-dist-upgrade-and-why-does-it-upgrade-more-than-upgrade

___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng