APT the system vs. front-ends [ was Apt dependency hell ]

Greg Rundlett greg.rundlett at gmail.com
Wed Nov 29 21:33:18 EST 2006


On 11/29/06, Tom Buskey <tom at buskey.name> wrote:
> On 11/29/06, Ben Scott <dragonhawk at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/29/06, Paul Lussier <p.lussier at comcast.net> wrote:
> > > So yes, both apt-get and aptitude use the "renowned apt package
> > > management infrastructure", but that infrastructure doesn't
> > > necessarilly provide all the logic required to deal with all
> > > dependency issues or package manipulation options.
> >
> >   Ahhhhh.  I see.  Makes sense.  Thanks.
> >
> >   I will say that I still find apt-get (the tool, not the religion) to
> > be superior to yum in several respects.  While it keeps improving, yum
> > is still dog slow (no pun intended) for many operations.  apt-get has
> > more built-in features, and also has more add-ons, wrappers, and such
> > available.

fwiw, Synaptic is a nice gui front-end that has worked well for me on
Debian (testing no less) and Kubuntu.  The latest Kubuntu live DVD is
now bundling Adept as a gui package manager which I can't comment on
because I have no experience with it.


[snip..]


More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list