Bug#695550: libjack-dev: does not automatically transition to libjack-jackd2-dev

[The Wanderer]

On 12/10/2012 04:59 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> Quoting The Wanderer (2012-12-10 17:57:18)
> 
>> On 12/10/2012 11:21 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

>>> Check the meanings with "aptitude --help".
>> 
>> On my system, the text output from that command does not include the string
>>  'dist':
> 
> True. Look at the *upgrade commands.

(In hindsight, from what I found in the man page, I should have thought of that
myself.)

wanderer at apologia$ aptitude --help | grep -i upgr
  install      - Install/upgrade packages.
  forbid-version - Forbid aptitude from upgrading to a specific package version.
  update       - Download lists of new/upgradable packages.
  safe-upgrade - Perform a safe upgrade.
  full-upgrade - Perform an upgrade, possibly installing and removing packages.
wanderer at apologia$

That's a reduced and less directly informative version of what's present in the
man page, and again, nothing there seems to imply what you described the purpose
of dist-upgrade (renamed to full-upgrade) to be.

Yes, dist-upgrade can install new packages and remove installed ones; that's
sometimes necessary in order to satisfy changing dependencies, e.g. when a
program adds a new feature which depends on a new library, or when package names
change to reflect new versions. That doesn't say anything about "relaxed
dependency handling" - or, more to the point, "more aggressive solutions" - as I
understand those terms, though.

>>> Oh, and if you used apt-get, then don't. Use aptitude!
>> 
>> I'd rather not, thanks. I'm told that it's not a good idea to mix-and-match
>> between aptitude and apt-get, and I find the aptitude UI to be palpably
>> less friendly and manageable in most circumstances than that of apt-get.
>> 
>> I'm aware that I'm a minority in this, but that doesn't change anything.
> 
> You are not a minority: Many have been mislead.

I meant a minority in the "less friendly and manageable" opinion.

> Feel free to use an inferior tool.

I disagree that apt-get is inferior. It may not provide as broad a feature set
(though I can't swear to that), but IMO as a functional tool it is just as good
or better for most purposes. (Or at least for my purposes.)

> But note that aptitude is the tool recommended for upgrading from one release
> to the next (nowadays, if it has ever been recommended to use apt-get).

I've long been aware that aptitude is by far the more commonly recommended tool
of the two, at least for new users; I've had the impression that that
recommendation extends to all purposes, not just to cross-release upgrades.

As Felipe points out, however, section 4.4 of the wheezy release notes now
explicitly states that apt-get is recommended over aptitude for cross-release
upgrades.


While I'd be interested to continue the discussion of aptitude vs. apt-get, it's
certainly offtopic for this bug. As such, I do not (presently) intend to reply
to any further posts on this bug on that subject, unless they appear to be going
back in the direction of trying to resolve the reported problem.

-- 
    The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Every time you let somebody set a limit they start moving it.
   - LiveJournal user antonia_tiger