Re: console-apt

[John Travers <J.C.Travers@durham.ac.uk>]

ressu@uusikaupunki.fi wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 04:53:57AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 10:12:20PM +0200, ressu@uusikaupunki.fi wrote:
> > > i disagree here, i found aptitude much more usable than console-apt, 
....
> > I looked a bit deeper into aptitude and you are right, it is not that bad as
> > it looks like. The main reason it is complicated is because the functions
> > are hidden behind keys and colors.
> >
.... 
> > I like the possibility of aptitude to pick the packages which will be
> > auto-upgraded, upgraded, installed etc... and the list of "new" packages is
> > something i have waited for a long time :=)
> 
> i find the new packages feature very useful, it's easy to keep track of added packages. and that no-colors feature has already been implemented in 0.0.6 it shows the state in chars too.
> 
> the keys are a absolute downside to aptitude, it takes a while to find the powerful >features/keys and to understand what happends if i press key 'f' or something.
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
I don't quite understand all of this, dselect has all of the features
you have mentioned here, i.e. new packages, intuitive key-bindings, easy
help pages, it is very stable and useable. It also can use all of the
apt features as well as not having to depend on apt. I can't see the
need for any other packaging tool (IMHO).

Cheers,
John Travers