On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 09:25:02AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 08:03:42PM -0400, Celejar wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:13:23 -0500 > > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:06:59 -0700, Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > said: > > > > > > > I'd say the main difference is that apt-get is a command-line tool, > > > > whereas aptitude is an interactive tool that can be driven from the > > > > command-line. > > > > > > Are there still command line usages of apt-get that are not > > > exactly the same in aptitude? And has apt-get started keeping track of > > > > The classic examples that arise periodically on the list are apt-get's > > 'build-dep' and 'source' actions, which apparently have no obvious > > aptitude versions. > > this bothers me, since I mostly use aptitude. When I need a build-dep > or source, I'm concerned that later aptitude may wipe something > inadvertantly. Do you know if there are plans to implement these > commands into aptitude? Or will apt-get always remain, so that its not > a problem?
aptitude shouldn't wipe out packages installed with apt-get, period full stop. The thing that bothers me, sometimes, about build-dep is that I have no way of deleting the build-dep once I don't need it. There would be real value in adding this command to aptitude if there was a way to tag packages installed by it for future removal. (one could also get crazy and imagine putting arbitrary tags on packages) I don't see the point of duplicating the functionality of "source", except that it means you can avoid running apt-get. So I guess the answer wrt plans is that I have vague and mushy plans to implement build-dep, and no particular interest in implementing source (there are many higher-priority items in the input queue). Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
