Camaleón: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:08:29 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > >> Remember, Aptitude's "resolver system" is different to apt-get's > > That's why I prefer to refresh both "separately". apt-get was happy with > the current db state while aptitude wasn't.
From what I know, I have trouble understanding why 'aptitude update'
fixed anything for you. But we probably need a developer to clear things
up.
>> P.S. I don't use aptitude but use apt-get whereas Jochen AFAIR use
>> aptitude.
>
> I neither use aptitude unless something goes wrong. Aptitude seems very
> powerful an capable but for me, it provides too many options that I
> barely use or pay attention to.
JFTR, I use apt-get nowadays as well. At least most of the time. The
simple reason is that it performs a few things faster than aptitude
(update, upgrade without upgradeable packages).
Sometimes aptitude's TUI is really useful. Like yesterday, when I
down-pinned debian-multimedia.org and wanted to replace all packages
from there with their official Debian counterparts (if possible).
Probably the most useful command for aptitude is 'keep-all'. It clears
any additional status concerning installations and removals that
aptitude keeps (and apt-get doesn't know about).
J.
--
In idle moments I remember former lovers with sentimental tenderness.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
