On Sun, Dec 03, 2006 at 01:05:29AM +0100, Florian Kulzer wrote: > On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:27:46 -0900, Ken Irving wrote: > > If it isn't "safe" to use apt-get once aptitide is installed, i.e., > > apt-get conflicts with aptititude, then couldn't this be handled in the > > package setup as policy? > > It is perfectly safe to mix aptitude and apt-get. I will now perform a > daring experiment to demonstrate this: I have here an up-to-date Debian Sid > box, which I have upgraded daily with aptitude for the last year (before > that I used apt-get, also daily). Now, what unspeakable horrors lie in > wait for me if I install something with apt-get and run aptitude > afterwards? There is only one way to find out... > > First of all, an md5sum of aptitude's list of installed packages (which > includes the "auto" flag) - I want to be able to show that I can restore > this state: > > $ aptitude search '~i' | md5sum > 06f9da945e91f95eb2913ed081809159 - > ... > # apt-get install aiksaurus > ... > # aptitude dist-upgrade > ... > # apt-get dist-upgrade > ... > # aptitude --purge-unused purge aiksaurus > ... > $ aptitude search '~i' | md5sum > 06f9da945e91f95eb2913ed081809159 - > > I rest my case.
I'll take your word for it. So once aptitude gets "synched" to my system, I can use either aptitude or apt-get with impunity? That sounds reasonable. But its initial behavior still strikes me as unreasonable. Would aptitude be left in a broken state if it warned me of inconsistencies but still did what I asked (e.g., install something in spite of unused packages)? Could not this work be postponed to some time when it is, in fact, critical? Ken -- Ken Irving, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
