I've periodically tried using aptitude, but always get scared off
when it seems to "run away". I'm sure it knows what's best for my
machine ;-), but is it possible to override this behavior?

$ sudo aptitude install wmmoonclock -s
...
The following packages are unused and will be REMOVED:
groff imagemagick libconfig-inifiles-perl perlmagick python2.3 python2.3-iconvcodec
rcs texi2html weblint
The following NEW packages will be installed:
wmmoonclock
0 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 9 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 0B/158kB of archives. After unpacking 21.2MB will be freed.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]

The first time I tried this I'm afraid I didn't look "very closely" at the
REMOVED lines. Silly of me not to suspect that aptitude would choose
this time to do a clean-up of some sort, and not just install the simple
little program I asked it for.

It's odd that I can use apt-get without any hint of these problems.

Per another thread, I tried to use the "unmarkauto" command to fix things,
but apprently the need to clean things up is still there

$ sudo aptitude unmarkauto '~M!~R~i'
...
The following packages are unused and will be REMOVED:
...

I'll probably just go back to using apt-get, and probably everything
will be fine until the next time I decide to try aptitude. Is there a
compelling reason to bother?

Ken

--
Ken Irving, fnkci@uaf.edu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

* Ken Irving <fnkci@uaf.edu> [061202 04:52]:
> I've periodically tried using aptitude, but always get scared off
> when it seems to "run away". I'm sure it knows what's best for my
> machine ;-), but is it possible to override this behavior?
....
> I'll probably just go back to using apt-get, and probably everything
> will be fine until the next time I decide to try aptitude. Is there a
> compelling reason to bother?


Synaptic works. Debian Etch installs synaptic by default. For most
users, it is foolish to mess around with anything else.

RLH


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 01:39:04AM -0900, Ken Irving wrote:
> $ sudo aptitude install wmmoonclock -s
> ...
> The following packages are unused and will be REMOVED:
> groff imagemagick libconfig-inifiles-perl perlmagick python2.3 python2.3-iconvcodec
> ...
>
> Per another thread, I tried to use the "unmarkauto" command to fix things,
> but apprently the need to clean things up is still there
> ...

The keep-all command is also mentioned, but it too doesn't seem
to fix things.

> I'll probably just go back to using apt-get, and probably everything
> will be fine until the next time I decide to try aptitude. Is there a
> compelling reason to bother?

The fine manual offers some , but it seems to assume use of the
interactive version:

As with any automatic process, there is a potential for things to go haywire.
...
You can cancel the automatic flag at any time by pressing m...

But surely aptitude can work off the command line, right?

The man page shows this:

<package>&m
Mark <package> as having been manually installed.

So I tried

$ sudo aptitude install groff\&m
...
The following packages are unused and will be REMOVED:
groff imagemagick ...

However, using install <package> without the &m suffix does appear to
work, and maybe that's enough to get aptitude -- I mean, my machine --
straightened out.

Ken

--
Ken Irving, fnkci@uaf.edu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 01:39:04 -0900, Ken Irving wrote:
> I've periodically tried using aptitude, but always get scared off
> when it seems to "run away". I'm sure it knows what's best for my
> machine ;-), but is it possible to override this behavior?
>
> $ sudo aptitude install wmmoonclock -s
> ...
> The following packages are unused and will be REMOVED:
> groff imagemagick libconfig-inifiles-perl perlmagick python2.3 python2.3-iconvcodec
> rcs texi2html weblint
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
> wmmoonclock
> 0 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 9 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
> Need to get 0B/158kB of archives. After unpacking 21.2MB will be freed.
> Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]
>
> The first time I tried this I'm afraid I didn't look "very closely" at the
> REMOVED lines. Silly of me not to suspect that aptitude would choose
> this time to do a clean-up of some sort, and not just install the simple
> little program I asked it for.
>
> It's odd that I can use apt-get without any hint of these problems.
>
> Per another thread, I tried to use the "unmarkauto" command to fix things,
> but apprently the need to clean things up is still there
>
> $ sudo aptitude unmarkauto '~M!~R~i'
> ...
> The following packages are unused and will be REMOVED:
> ...

Running "aptitude keep-all" should make aptitude forget whatever it
wanted to do. (Changing settings or "auto" marks alone does not cancel
intended actions that were based on the prior configuration.)

> I'll probably just go back to using apt-get, and probably everything
> will be fine until the next time I decide to try aptitude. Is there a
> compelling reason to bother?

I like the "forbid-version" functionality (I run Sid and it is so much
more convenient than having to remember to remove apt pins or dpkg
holds), the interactive interface, the powerful search patterns, the
log, the convenient way to look at changelogs before downloading, and
the fact that I can fine-tune how recommendations are treated for
automatic (un)installing. I also have observed aptitude acting much
smarter in conflict resolution, for example if package "foo" gets split
into "foo" and "foo-data" in an upgrade. With apt-get this often
resulted in a "chicken-and-egg" problem since the new "foo-data" had
overlapping files with the old "foo" package and "foo" could not be
upgraded directly because the new "foo" depended on "foo-data". In such
situations I often had to break the tie manually, for example by
temporarily uninstalling "foo", with "--force" if necessary. Aptitude
solves this type of problem without user intervention by going some
clever two-step route.

(Disclaimer: I have not used apt-get in a long time; it might have
learned some new tricks since I switched to aptitude.)

--
Regards,
Florian


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 05:34:23AM -0600, Russell L. Harris wrote:
> * Ken Irving <fnkci@uaf.edu> [061202 04:52]:
> > I've periodically tried using aptitude, but always get scared off
> > when it seems to "run away". I'm sure it knows what's best for my
> > machine ;-), but is it possible to override this behavior?
> ...
> > I'll probably just go back to using apt-get, and probably everything
> > will be fine until the next time I decide to try aptitude. Is there a
> > compelling reason to bother?
>
>
> Synaptic works. Debian Etch installs synaptic by default. For most
> users, it is foolish to mess around with anything else.

Does synaptic do something better than apt-get? It doesn't appear to
be very usable on a command-line, looking at aptitude show synaptic.

>From another thread:

> From: Ralph Katz <ralph.katz@rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: aptitude dist-upgrade removes important packages
> On 11/17/2006 01:30 PM, Russell L. Harris wrote:
> >
> > Meanwhile, Debian installs "synaptic" by default. Use synaptic
> > instead of aptitude.
>
> Au contraire... The docs are quite explicit about this: use *aptitude*.

Maybe I'll just crawl back under a rock and continue using apt-get.

I thought that aptitude combined the functionality of apt-get and
apt-cache commands, but aptitude source <package> didn't work, and
isn't even mentioned in the man page. Hmm...

Ken

--
Ken Irving, fnkci@uaf.edu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 01:00:14PM +0100, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 01:39:04 -0900, Ken Irving wrote:
> > I'll probably just go back to using apt-get, and probably everything
> > will be fine until the next time I decide to try aptitude. Is there a
> > compelling reason to bother?
>
> I like the "forbid-version" functionality (I run Sid and it is so much
> more convenient than having to remember to remove apt pins or dpkg
> holds), the interactive interface, the powerful search patterns, the
> log, the convenient way to look at changelogs before downloading, and
> the fact that I can fine-tune how recommendations are treated for
> automatic (un)installing. I also have observed aptitude acting much
> smarter in conflict resolution, for example if package "foo" gets split
> into "foo" and "foo-data" in an upgrade. With apt-get this often
> resulted in a "chicken-and-egg" problem since the new "foo-data" had
> overlapping files with the old "foo" package and "foo" could not be
> upgraded directly because the new "foo" depended on "foo-data". In such
> situations I often had to break the tie manually, for example by
> temporarily uninstalling "foo", with "--force" if necessary. Aptitude
> solves this type of problem without user intervention by going some
> clever two-step route.
>
> (Disclaimer: I have not used apt-get in a long time; it might have
> learned some new tricks since I switched to aptitude.)

Nice list, but I try not to do anything fancy like pinning or forcing or
holding, and apt-get has always seemed to work well enough. Logging is
good, but I think that was just added to apt-get. The chicken and egg
problem during major upgrades may/seems to be a reason, but apt-get has
handled those well enough in my experience, maybe with a manual two-step.

I have the impression that I can use aptitude search if it's better, but
still use apt-get to install and upgrade without conflict.

--
Ken Irving, fnkci@uaf.edu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

* Ken Irving <fnkci@uaf.edu> [061202 06:26]:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 05:34:23AM -0600, Russell L. Harris wrote:
> Does synaptic do something better than apt-get? It doesn't appear to
> be very usable on a command-line, looking at aptitude show synaptic.

Unless you are not running X, why is that a problem?


> >From another thread:
> > >
> > > Meanwhile, Debian installs "synaptic" by default. Use synaptic
> > > instead of aptitude.
> >
> > Au contraire... The docs are quite explicit about this: use *aptitude*.

The fact is that Debian installs synaptic by default. I have been
using synaptic exclusively for nearly a year, and have experienced
none of the woes others on this list say they are encountering with
aptitude and apt-get.

I am not a crusader regarding this matter. Synaptic works for me and
has been trouble-free. And, importantly, it is not nearly as easy to
get in trouble when using synaptic as it is when using aptitude or
apt-get; I speak from experience.

RLH


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12/02/06 06:13, Ken Irving wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 05:34:23AM -0600, Russell L. Harris wrote:
>> * Ken Irving <fnkci@uaf.edu> [061202 04:52]:
[snip]
> Maybe I'll just crawl back under a rock and continue using apt-get.

Use what works and doesn't go weird on you. Stick with apt-get.

> I thought that aptitude combined the functionality of apt-get and
> apt-cache commands, but aptitude source <package> didn't work, and
> isn't even mentioned in the man page. Hmm...

You might like wajig; I think it's handy. It's a do-almost-
everything shell, which is also a wrapper around apt-get and apt-cache.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA

Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFcXXuS9HxQb37XmcRAhnSAKCxjP3oLhjkZ2WV8Ztn/+IwFGrCTQCdEWAc
Wujir8P/6eJIvib6Kbk4izI=
=FvE/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 06:38:46AM -0600, Russell L. Harris wrote:
> * Ken Irving <fnkci@uaf.edu> [061202 06:26]:
> > On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 05:34:23AM -0600, Russell L. Harris wrote:
> > Does synaptic do something better than apt-get? It doesn't appear to
> > be very usable on a command-line, looking at aptitude show synaptic.
>
> Unless you are not running X, why is that a problem?

I don't have X on servers (running stable), but even on workstations
I prefer to not "get into" an application where a simple command will
do the job. (Some tense moments inside deselect come to mind, but
maybe that was due to my inaptitude to figure out/read/learn its
key mappings.)

> The fact is that Debian installs synaptic by default. I have been
> using synaptic exclusively for nearly a year, and have experienced
> none of the woes others on this list say they are encountering with
> aptitude and apt-get.
>
> I am not a crusader regarding this matter. Synaptic works for me and
> has been trouble-free. And, importantly, it is not nearly as easy to
> get in trouble when using synaptic as it is when using aptitude or
> apt-get; I speak from experience.

I can appreciate that, but I'm used to using apt-get and it seems to
do what's needed. Just figured to try aptitude (etc.) based on all
the glowing reports I've seen on the list, but I'm not convinced of
its (nor synaptic's) advantages over apt-get.

Ken

--
Ken Irving, fnkci@uaf.edu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 03:31:29 -0900, Ken Irving wrote:

[..]

> I have the impression that I can use aptitude search if it's better, but
> still use apt-get to install and upgrade without conflict.

You can use "aptitude search" as a normal user, so there is no danger
that it will interfere with whatever other package manager you prefer to
use.

--
Regards,
Florian


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 06:38:46 -0600, Russell L. Harris wrote:
> * Ken Irving <fnkci@uaf.edu> [061202 06:26]:
> > On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 05:34:23AM -0600, Russell L. Harris wrote:
> > Does synaptic do something better than apt-get? It doesn't appear to
> > be very usable on a command-line, looking at aptitude show synaptic.
>
> Unless you are not running X, why is that a problem?
>
>
> > >From another thread:
> > > >
> > > > Meanwhile, Debian installs "synaptic" by default. Use synaptic
> > > > instead of aptitude.
> > >
> > > Au contraire... The docs are quite explicit about this: use *aptitude*.
>
> The fact is that Debian installs synaptic by default.

I think synaptic is only installed by "default" if you use the tasksel
"desktop" option to set up your system. Not everybody does that. In
fact, since Debian is often used on servers it needs a default package
manager which does not depend on X. This default package manager is
aptitude right now as far as I know.

--
Regards,
Florian


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 18:54:36 +0200
Yuriy Padlyak <yura@cvt.com.ua> wrote:

> Raquel wrote:
> >
> > Is the problem, perhaps, because of the differences between apt
> > and aptitude? I ran into the same problem when I first started
> > using aptitude.
> >
> > What I did was to go into the interactive aptitude, deselected
> > those packages I didn't want removed and installed the package I
> > wanted. When aptitude was finished installing the package, it
> > had created its own database and all went well after that point.
> >
> >
> >
> Hi,
>
> Could you please tell me, How did you deselected those packages,
> You didn't want removed? I tried recently without any success.
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Regards,
> Yuriy Padlyak

In the interactive mode, you press "g" to see the packages which are
being removed and/or installed. There you can press "+" to deselect
those packages which are being removed, or you can press "_" to
deselect those packages which are being installed. When you have
the list as you'd like (or as close as you can because of
dependencies) then you press "g" again to install/uninstall those
packages.

I hope that made sense.

--
Raquel
================================================== ==========
We have been down this road before in this country. The right to
liberty and happiness belongs to each of us and on the same terms,
without regard to either skin color or sexual orientation.
--John Lewis


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Ken Irving wrote:

>I've periodically tried using aptitude, but always get scared off
>when it seems to "run away". I'm sure it knows what's best for my
>machine ;-), but is it possible to override this behavior?
>
> $ sudo aptitude install wmmoonclock -s
> ...
> The following packages are unused and will be REMOVED:
> groff imagemagick libconfig-inifiles-perl perlmagick python2.3 python2.3-iconvcodec
> rcs texi2html weblint
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
> wmmoonclock
> 0 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 9 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
> Need to get 0B/158kB of archives. After unpacking 21.2MB will be freed.
> Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?]
>
>
<SNIP>

>It's odd that I can use apt-get without any hint of these problems.
>
>Per another thread, I tried to use the "unmarkauto" command to fix things,
>but apprently the need to clean things up is still there
>
> $ sudo aptitude unmarkauto '~M!~R~i'
> ...
> The following packages are unused and will be REMOVED:
> ...
>
>I'll probably just go back to using apt-get, and probably everything
>will be fine until the next time I decide to try aptitude. Is there a
>compelling reason to bother?
>
>
I have found that trying to get aptitude to work well on a system that
has been managed with apt-get has never worked for me. My box has been
running Debian since Bo, IIRC, and aptitude has tried to rearrange the
whole box, so I deleted it. However... the box has accumulated a lot of
cruft, which even deb-orphan can not easily rid me of, so... Instead of
just doing a dist-upgrade from Sarge to Etch when Etch goes stable I
have set aside a seperate set of partitions and installed Etch from
scratch with debootstrap and a chroot. On these partitions I have ONLY
used aptitude, and it seems to do a good job. Its ability to keep track
of what is no longer needed should keep down the level of cruft
accumulation and allow me to just aptitude 'dist-upgrade' for another
dozen years, or more.

--
Marc Shapiro

No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow.
What?! Look, somebody's got to have some damn perspective around here.
Boom. Sooner or later ... boom!

- Susan Ivanova: B5 - Grail


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 04:00:02AM -0900, Ken Irving wrote:

> I can appreciate that, but I'm used to using apt-get and it seems to
> do what's needed. Just figured to try aptitude (etc.) based on all
> the glowing reports I've seen on the list, but I'm not convinced of
> its (nor synaptic's) advantages over apt-get.
>

To me the advantage isn't when installing but when removing.

Apt-get can leave a bunch of cruft buildup. If you install a package
that depends on 10 others some of which depend on another 5, you end up
installing 16 packages. Now you want to remove the orrigional package.

Since apt-get doesn't keep track of those other 15 packages (other than
that they are all installed), you have to use another programm to find
and remove the cruft.

Once you've got aptitude set up, you __can__ use it from the command line
just like apt-get and it will manage the cruft.

Doug.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 01:39:04AM -0900, Ken Irving wrote:
> I've periodically tried using aptitude, but always get scared off
> when it seems to "run away". I'm sure it knows what's best for my
> machine ;-), but is it possible to override this behavior?
>

Very much yes. Its called the interactive mode. When you select what
you want to do, you hit 'g' (for go). It then presents a list of what
it wants to do (add these that you've chosen, add these that these
depend on, remove these that you've chosen, remove these that were only
installed to meet dependencies) plus a list of packages suggested by
those being installed. You can edit this list to your heart's content;
if you break something it will tell you and you can fix it before
anything is actually done.

When you're satisfied with what it wants to do, you hit 'g' again and it
does it.

Aptitude may go a little 'crazy' or 'run away' when you first start
using it until you tell it which packages are installe because _you_
want them there and which are only installed to meet dependancies.
After this step is done it is remarkably well behaved.

Doug.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 05:34:23AM -0600, Russell L. Harris wrote:
> * Ken Irving <fnkci@uaf.edu> [061202 04:52]:
> > I've periodically tried using aptitude, but always get scared off
> > when it seems to "run away". I'm sure it knows what's best for my
> > machine ;-), but is it possible to override this behavior?
> ...
> > I'll probably just go back to using apt-get, and probably everything
> > will be fine until the next time I decide to try aptitude. Is there a
> > compelling reason to bother?
>
>
> Synaptic works. Debian Etch installs synaptic by default. For most
> users, it is foolish to mess around with anything else.
>

Unless something breaks your X, then you're back with apt-get or
aptitude.

Doug.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:59:29AM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> Aptitude may go a little 'crazy' or 'run away' when you first start
> using it until you tell it which packages are installe because _you_
> want them there and which are only installed to meet dependancies.
> After this step is done it is remarkably well behaved.

Maybe this is a perlism, but aptitude to me violates the "principle
of least surprise" in this regard. I asked it to install a simple,
standalone program, but it was not able to do this without "fixing" things
to its own model of consistency, not mine, first. IMHO it should do this
if necessary, but it should do so when installed, like other well-bahaved
packages with partucular needs. Some packages install but require some
file in /etc/something to be tweaked before being fully functional.

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?

Ken
--
Ken Irving, fnkci@uaf.edu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:27:46 -0900, Ken Irving wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:59:29AM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> > Aptitude may go a little 'crazy' or 'run away' when you first start
> > using it until you tell it which packages are installe because _you_
> > want them there and which are only installed to meet dependancies.
> > After this step is done it is remarkably well behaved.
>
> Maybe this is a perlism, but aptitude to me violates the "principle
> of least surprise" in this regard. I asked it to install a simple,
> standalone program, but it was not able to do this without "fixing" things
> to its own model of consistency, not mine, first. IMHO it should do this
> if necessary, but it should do so when installed, like other well-bahaved
> packages with partucular needs. Some packages install but require some
> file in /etc/something to be tweaked before being fully functional.

My theory is: There are no surprises with aptitude if one reads the
available documentation before one starts to use it.

> 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 -

As my guinea pig I will use the package "aiksaurus" since it does not
have too many dependencies, which makes it easier to follow what
happens. This is the starting configuration for this package and its
dependencies:

$ aptitude search '~n^aiksaurus$|~R^aiksaurus$'
p aiksaurus - an English-language thesaurus (utility)
p libaiksaurus-1.2-0c2a - an English-language thesaurus (development)
p libaiksaurus0c102 - an English-language thesaurus (development)
i A libc6 - GNU C Library: Shared libraries
i A libgcc1 - GCC support library
i A libstdc++5 - The GNU Standard C++ Library v3
i A libstdc++6 - The GNU Standard C++ Library v3

Let's become root and tempt fate:

# apt-get install aiksaurus
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
The following extra packages will be installed:
libaiksaurus-1.2-0c2a
The following NEW packages will be installed:
aiksaurus libaiksaurus-1.2-0c2a
0 upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 34.2kB of archives.
After unpacking 147kB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue [Y/n]? y
Get:1 http://ftp.nl.debian.org testing/main libaiksaurus-1.2-0c2a 1.2.1+dev-0.12-3 [23.7kB]
Get:2 http://ftp.nl.debian.org testing/main aiksaurus 1.2.1+dev-0.12-3 [10.5kB]
Fetched 34.2kB in 0s (112kB/s)
Reading package fields... Done
Reading package status... Done
Retrieving bug reports... Done
Parsing Found/Fixed information... Done
Selecting previously deselected package libaiksaurus-1.2-0c2a.
(Reading database ... 240380 files and directories currently installed.)
Unpacking libaiksaurus-1.2-0c2a (from .../libaiksaurus-1.2-0c2a_1.2.1+dev-0.12-3_i386.deb) ...
Selecting previously deselected package aiksaurus.
Unpacking aiksaurus (from .../aiksaurus_1.2.1+dev-0.12-3_i386.deb) ...
Setting up libaiksaurus-1.2-0c2a (1.2.1+dev-0.12-3) ...
Setting up aiksaurus (1.2.1+dev-0.12-3) ...

Have we confused aptitude with this maneuver?

$ aptitude search '~n^aiksaurus$|~R^aiksaurus$'
i aiksaurus - an English-language thesaurus (utility)
i A libaiksaurus-1.2-0c2a - an English-language thesaurus (development)
p libaiksaurus0c102 - an English-language thesaurus (development)
i A libc6 - GNU C Library: Shared libraries
i A libgcc1 - GCC support library
i A libstdc++5 - The GNU Standard C++ Library v3
i A libstdc++6 - The GNU Standard C++ Library v3

That does not look too unreasonable, does it now? (libaiksaurus0c102 is
included in this list because I have unstable, testing and stable in my
sources.list) How about some dist-upgrades as root:

# aptitude dist-upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Reading extended state information
Initializing package states... Done
Reading task descriptions... Done
Building tag database... Done
No packages will be installed, upgraded, or removed.
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 0B of archives. After unpacking 0B will be used.

# apt-get dist-upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Calculating upgrade... Done
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.

Do I recover the original state if remove aiksaurus again? (I have to
purge, otherwise the configuration files will stay in place.)

# aptitude --purge-unused purge aiksaurus
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Reading extended state information
Initializing package states... Done
Reading task descriptions... Done
Building tag database... Done
The following packages are unused and will be REMOVED:
libaiksaurus-1.2-0c2a{p}
The following packages will be REMOVED:
aiksaurus{p}
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 2 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 0B of archives. After unpacking 147kB will be freed.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?] y
Writing extended state information... Done
(Reading database ... 240389 files and directories currently installed.)
Removing aiksaurus ...
Removing libaiksaurus-1.2-0c2a ...

So far, so good:

$ aptitude search '~n^aiksaurus$|~R^aiksaurus$'
p aiksaurus - an English-language thesaurus (utility)
p libaiksaurus-1.2-0c2a - an English-language thesaurus (development)
p libaiksaurus0c102 - an English-language thesaurus (development)
i A libc6 - GNU C Library: Shared libraries
i A libgcc1 - GCC support library
i A libstdc++5 - The GNU Standard C++ Library v3
i A libstdc++6 - The GNU Standard C++ Library v3

Whew, the C(++) libraries are still there. In fact, it looks like
nothing ever happened. What about the overall state of the installed
packages?

$ aptitude search '~i' | md5sum
06f9da945e91f95eb2913ed081809159 -

I rest my case.

--
Regards,
Florian


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

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, fnkci@uaf.edu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Russell L. Harris wrote:
> Unless you are not running X, why is that a problem?

Uhm, maybe the times when X is broken? Takes a hell of a lot more to
break the console.

Or maybe people want to run minimalist and not bother with X if they don't
have to?

Or maybe even that the CL tools are better suited for this sort of thing?
I run many X apps, can't stand Synaptic compared to aptitude. It's too slow,
too cumbersome, too unintuitive. Maybe if it were more focused on presenting
information in a decent manner and not require the mouse every .25s that would
change.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Russell L. Harris wrote:
> Unless you are not running X, why is that a problem?

Uhm, maybe the times when X is broken? Takes a hell of a lot more to
break the console.

Or maybe people want to run minimalist and not bother with X if they don't
have to?

Or maybe even that the CL tools are better suited for this sort of thing?
I run many X apps, can't stand Synaptic compared to aptitude. It's too slow,
too cumbersome, too unintuitive. Maybe if it were more focused on presenting
information in a decent manner and not require the mouse every .25s that would
change.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Florian Kulzer wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:27:46 -0900, Ken Irving wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:59:29AM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
>>
>>> Aptitude may go a little 'crazy' or 'run away' when you first start
>>> using it until you tell it which packages are installe because _you_
>>> want them there and which are only installed to meet dependancies.
>>> After this step is done it is remarkably well behaved.
>>>
>> Maybe this is a perlism, but aptitude to me violates the "principle
>> of least surprise" in this regard. I asked it to install a simple,
>> standalone program, but it was not able to do this without "fixing" things
>> to its own model of consistency, not mine, first. IMHO it should do this
>> if necessary, but it should do so when installed, like other well-bahaved
>> packages with partucular needs. Some packages install but require some
>> file in /etc/something to be tweaked before being fully functional.
>>
>
> My theory is: There are no surprises with aptitude if one reads the
> available documentation before one starts to use it.
>
>
>> 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 -
>
> As my guinea pig I will use the package "aiksaurus" since it does not
> have too many dependencies, which makes it easier to follow what
> happens. This is the starting configuration for this package and its
> dependencies:
>
> $ aptitude search '~n^aiksaurus$|~R^aiksaurus$'
> p aiksaurus - an English-language thesaurus (utility)
> p libaiksaurus-1.2-0c2a - an English-language thesaurus (development)
> p libaiksaurus0c102 - an English-language thesaurus (development)
&g