Robert Ian Smit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 12:06:12AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: >> > What is wrong with that? >> >> The chief problem with apt-get is that it doesn't show Recommends: and >> Suggests: (and isn't designed to do so - it was originally just a test >> program for the apt libraries). Since package maintainers often use >> these fields to provide extra information to users, you lose out by >> using a tool that doesn't tell you about them. > > I can see that the extra information can be useful. I don't think I > need that information too often though. I either know what I want or > I turn to other sources of information to find out what software > forfills a given need.
That's not always so easy to find out. Some packages are rather crippled if you don't install their Recommended: packages, and it's usually not at all obvious why some functionality is missing. In most cases, you really want to install all Recommended: packages, and you should consider installing Suggested: packages. > As I understand it, apt-get will make sure that any piece of > software just works. Not necessarily. apt-get can't always do a very good job of dependency resolution. It can be pretty easy to get your system into a broken state that's tough to fix with apt-get alone, especially if you track unstable. Also, apt-get tends to be too quiet. For example, it may decide to hold back a whole bunch of packages without giving the user any hints as to why. apt-get is useful for times when you know exactly what package you want to install. However, it's a rather inadequate for tracking updates to continuously-changing distributions. -- People said I was dumb, but I proved them! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
