Re: Apt-get vs Aptitude vs Apt
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 1:58 AM Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > On Ma, 11 aug 20, 15:33:53, Javier Barroso wrote: > > > > I swiched from aptitude to apt-get/apt some years ago > > > > aptitude need love :( > > > > My problem was mixing 64 and 32 bits packages. Seem aptitude didn't do a > > good job > > > > Reading Planet debian and transitions and apt-listbugs (or how It is named) > > , apt update && apt full-upgrade , run perfect in unstable > > In my experience[1] 'apt full-upgrade' is rarely needed, even on > unstable, because 'apt upgrade' allows for new packages (and > 'apt autoremove' is needed anyway for removals). > > This will take care of most library transitions (e.g. package foo > depends libbar1 -> libbar2) and packages with the version in their name > (e.g. linux-image-amd64 depends linux-image-5.6.xx -> > linux-image-5.7.xx). > > The main benefit of aptitude (especially for unstable) is it's > interactive mode: > > * Easy browsing of packages, (reverse) dependency chains, etc. > > * Keeps track of "new" packages, very useful to see what's new in >unstable. > > * Easy selective disabling of Recommends (or enabling, for those who >disable Recommends globally). > > * One step (full-)upgrade and autoremoval of packages (press 'u' to >update the package list, 'U' to prepare the full-upgrade, 'g' to >inspect the proposed actions and 'g' again to apply). > > * Interactive dependency resolving for when (not if) unstable is >broken, with several methods to tweak it (let it search for different >solutions, mark specific packages to "keep", etc.). > > * Forbid version, for when (not if) the new version of a package you >need has a bug that affects you. > >aptitude will then automatically skip to the next version when >available (hopefully with the bug fixed, but that's why apt-listbugs >exists) > > * possibly more that I forget right now. > > > And then there's aptitude's search patterns, for which there is > currently no replacement. > > I have aptitude installed on all but the smallest system (aptitude + > dependencies can be significant for a very small install). > > [1] Admittedly my recent experience is only with a smallish install with > openbox, Kodi and Linux build dependencies (just enough to keep track of > hardware support for the PINE A64+ and possibly enable some kernel > options for it that are not enabled in Debian's kernel), though I don't > expect it to be much worse with a full Desktop Environment install or > similar. > > > Kind regards, > Andrei > -- > http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Okay, so I see no reason not to just continue to use aptitude. It seems to work for me as well as anything else. Thanks to all.
Re: Apt-get vs Aptitude vs Apt
On Ma, 11 aug 20, 15:33:53, Javier Barroso wrote: > > I swiched from aptitude to apt-get/apt some years ago > > aptitude need love :( > > My problem was mixing 64 and 32 bits packages. Seem aptitude didn't do a > good job > > Reading Planet debian and transitions and apt-listbugs (or how It is named) > , apt update && apt full-upgrade , run perfect in unstable In my experience[1] 'apt full-upgrade' is rarely needed, even on unstable, because 'apt upgrade' allows for new packages (and 'apt autoremove' is needed anyway for removals). This will take care of most library transitions (e.g. package foo depends libbar1 -> libbar2) and packages with the version in their name (e.g. linux-image-amd64 depends linux-image-5.6.xx -> linux-image-5.7.xx). The main benefit of aptitude (especially for unstable) is it's interactive mode: * Easy browsing of packages, (reverse) dependency chains, etc. * Keeps track of "new" packages, very useful to see what's new in unstable. * Easy selective disabling of Recommends (or enabling, for those who disable Recommends globally). * One step (full-)upgrade and autoremoval of packages (press 'u' to update the package list, 'U' to prepare the full-upgrade, 'g' to inspect the proposed actions and 'g' again to apply). * Interactive dependency resolving for when (not if) unstable is broken, with several methods to tweak it (let it search for different solutions, mark specific packages to "keep", etc.). * Forbid version, for when (not if) the new version of a package you need has a bug that affects you. aptitude will then automatically skip to the next version when available (hopefully with the bug fixed, but that's why apt-listbugs exists) * possibly more that I forget right now. And then there's aptitude's search patterns, for which there is currently no replacement. I have aptitude installed on all but the smallest system (aptitude + dependencies can be significant for a very small install). [1] Admittedly my recent experience is only with a smallish install with openbox, Kodi and Linux build dependencies (just enough to keep track of hardware support for the PINE A64+ and possibly enable some kernel options for it that are not enabled in Debian's kernel), though I don't expect it to be much worse with a full Desktop Environment install or similar. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Apt-get vs Aptitude vs Apt
El mar., 11 ago. 2020 13:31, Andrei POPESCU escribió: > On Vi, 07 aug 20, 13:31:53, Default User wrote: > > Hey guys, > > > > Recently there was a thread about aptitude dependency resolution > > limitations. > > If you are referring to the limitations of 'aptitude why', this 1) > reverse dependency and 2) apt / apt-get don't even have (an equivalent > for) this. > > > Years ago, I believe I read in the Debian documentation that aptitude was > > preferred to apt-get, because it seemed to have better dependency > > resolution. > > The dependency resolution of aptitude is more... advanced ;) > > Depending on the situation this may or may not be good. While APT's > dependency resolution is simpler, it is also more predictable. > > > Now, we have apt, as well. > > The command 'apt' is just another frontend to APT (the package manager), > same as apt-get, apt-cache, etc. which it is meant to replace for > interactive use. > > The dependency resolution algorithm is the same. It does have different > defaults though, e.g. 'apt upgrade' is equivalent to > 'apt-get upgrade --with-new-pkgs'. > > > So, all other things being equal, which is currently considered to be the > > best at dependency resolution? > > Just my personal opinion: > > For stable (+ updates, security, backports) it doesn't matter, use > whichever you like best. > > For testing or unstable aptitude's interactive dependency resolution can > be very useful. It may need some tweaking though, according to my > archive I was using > > Aptitude::ProblemResolver::SolutionCost "removals"; > > to tweak the resolver. This may have changed in the meantime (it's been > a few releases since I stopped using unstable for my "main" install). > > For upgrades between stable releases (also known as a "dist-upgrade" > because of the 'apt-get' command) always use whatever is recommended in > the corresponding Release Notes, because that is what was tested and > found to produce the best results *for that particular distribution > upgrade*. > > Kind regards, > Andrei > -- > http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser I swiched from aptitude to apt-get/apt some years ago aptitude need love :( My problem was mixing 64 and 32 bits packages. Seem aptitude didn't do a good job Reading Planet debian and transitions and apt-listbugs (or how It is named) , apt update && apt full-upgrade , run perfect in unstable Kind regards >
Re: Apt-get vs Aptitude vs Apt
On Vi, 07 aug 20, 13:31:53, Default User wrote: > Hey guys, > > Recently there was a thread about aptitude dependency resolution > limitations. If you are referring to the limitations of 'aptitude why', this 1) reverse dependency and 2) apt / apt-get don't even have (an equivalent for) this. > Years ago, I believe I read in the Debian documentation that aptitude was > preferred to apt-get, because it seemed to have better dependency > resolution. The dependency resolution of aptitude is more... advanced ;) Depending on the situation this may or may not be good. While APT's dependency resolution is simpler, it is also more predictable. > Now, we have apt, as well. The command 'apt' is just another frontend to APT (the package manager), same as apt-get, apt-cache, etc. which it is meant to replace for interactive use. The dependency resolution algorithm is the same. It does have different defaults though, e.g. 'apt upgrade' is equivalent to 'apt-get upgrade --with-new-pkgs'. > So, all other things being equal, which is currently considered to be the > best at dependency resolution? Just my personal opinion: For stable (+ updates, security, backports) it doesn't matter, use whichever you like best. For testing or unstable aptitude's interactive dependency resolution can be very useful. It may need some tweaking though, according to my archive I was using Aptitude::ProblemResolver::SolutionCost "removals"; to tweak the resolver. This may have changed in the meantime (it's been a few releases since I stopped using unstable for my "main" install). For upgrades between stable releases (also known as a "dist-upgrade" because of the 'apt-get' command) always use whatever is recommended in the corresponding Release Notes, because that is what was tested and found to produce the best results *for that particular distribution upgrade*. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Apt-get vs Aptitude vs Apt
On Sat, 08 Aug 2020 13:06:50 +0200 Johann Klammer wrote: > On 08/07/2020 10:10 PM, Joe wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:31:53 -0400 > > Default User wrote: > > > >> Hey guys, > >> > >> Recently there was a thread about aptitude dependency resolution > >> limitations. > >> > >> Years ago, I believe I read in the Debian documentation that > >> aptitude was preferred to apt-get, because it seemed to have > >> better dependency resolution. > >> > >> Now, we have apt, as well. > >> > >> So, all other things being equal, which is currently considered to > >> be the best at dependency resolution? > > > > I believe it is still aptitude. > > > > However, the length of time it takes increases sharply with number > > of packages to be upgraded. If you have more than a hundred or so, > > (not unusual on unstable) it may take a very long time. It is > > usually not the method recommended for upgrading Debian stable to > > the next version. > If you make use of the accept/reject function it gets kinda > acceptable. In the dependency resolution screen you can press a and r > to accept and reject the selected action. > together with ',' and '.' you'll get where you want. Yes, but the time taken is to actually calculate the action offered. For a few hundred packages, that can be a couple of hours. I expect installation to take a significant time. I recall giving up once after about six hours, but I can't recall how many packages were involved. It was a first unstable upgrade in about six months, I try not to let it go that long, and upgrade my unstable workstation almost every day. -- Joe
Re: Apt-get vs Aptitude vs Apt
On 08/07/2020 10:10 PM, Joe wrote: > On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:31:53 -0400 > Default User wrote: > >> Hey guys, >> >> Recently there was a thread about aptitude dependency resolution >> limitations. >> >> Years ago, I believe I read in the Debian documentation that aptitude >> was preferred to apt-get, because it seemed to have better dependency >> resolution. >> >> Now, we have apt, as well. >> >> So, all other things being equal, which is currently considered to be >> the best at dependency resolution? > > I believe it is still aptitude. > > However, the length of time it takes increases sharply with number of > packages to be upgraded. If you have more than a hundred or so, (not > unusual on unstable) it may take a very long time. It is usually not > the method recommended for upgrading Debian stable to the next version. > If you make use of the accept/reject function it gets kinda acceptable. In the dependency resolution screen you can press a and r to accept and reject the selected action. together with ',' and '.' you'll get where you want.
Re: Apt-get vs Aptitude vs Apt
* 2020-08-07 20:04:24-03, riveravaldez wrote: > On Friday, August 7, 2020, Joe wrote: >> I believe it is still aptitude. >> >> However, the length of time it takes increases sharply with number of >> packages to be upgraded. If you have more than a hundred or so, (not >> unusual on unstable) it may take a very long time. It is usually not >> the method recommended for upgrading Debian stable to the next >> version. > > What is the recommended method? When upgrading Debian stable to the next stable version always read the release notes and follow its guide for upgrading. Use the tools and commands recommended there. The recommended tools and upgrade procedure have changed in the past and can change in the future so the only good answer is to read the notes every time. https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ For normal security upgrades and package installations user can choose any tool. The difference is that apt-get and other apt-* tools are more low level and stable to use in scripts. Obviously it can be used interactively too. Apt and Aptitude are meant for interactive use. -- /// Teemu Likonen - .-.. http://www.iki.fi/tlikonen/ // OpenPGP: 4E1055DC84E9DFF613D78557719D69D324539450 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Apt-get vs Aptitude vs Apt
On Friday, August 7, 2020, Joe wrote: > On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:31:53 -0400 > Default User wrote: >> So, all other things being equal, which is currently considered to be >> the best at dependency resolution? > > I believe it is still aptitude. > > However, the length of time it takes increases sharply with number of > packages to be upgraded. If you have more than a hundred or so, (not > unusual on unstable) it may take a very long time. It is usually not > the method recommended for upgrading Debian stable to the next version. What is the recommended method? BTW, I keep using apt-get for everything. Should I expect any kind of problems? Thanks a lot.
Re: Apt-get vs Aptitude vs Apt
On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:31:53 -0400 Default User wrote: > Hey guys, > > Recently there was a thread about aptitude dependency resolution > limitations. > > Years ago, I believe I read in the Debian documentation that aptitude > was preferred to apt-get, because it seemed to have better dependency > resolution. > > Now, we have apt, as well. > > So, all other things being equal, which is currently considered to be > the best at dependency resolution? I believe it is still aptitude. However, the length of time it takes increases sharply with number of packages to be upgraded. If you have more than a hundred or so, (not unusual on unstable) it may take a very long time. It is usually not the method recommended for upgrading Debian stable to the next version. -- Joe
Apt-get vs Aptitude vs Apt
Hey guys, Recently there was a thread about aptitude dependency resolution limitations. Years ago, I believe I read in the Debian documentation that aptitude was preferred to apt-get, because it seemed to have better dependency resolution. Now, we have apt, as well. So, all other things being equal, which is currently considered to be the best at dependency resolution?
