3 ms·

I've had apt-related troubles in the past, but they almost always were caused by the use of custom repositories/PPAs. Further, it might seem arcane to have to

by plorg 12y ago

I've had apt-related troubles in the past, but they almost always were caused by the use of custom repositories/PPAs. Further, it might seem arcane to have to type "apt-get install -f" to install dependencies for an autonomous .deb package, but I'm not sure how different that is from having to learn, for example, the myriad switches for pacman.

antocv 12y ago
> the myriad switches for pacman. Pacman doesnt leave me with a broken package-manager when a package fails to install. For example pacman -S thatprogram and if it fails, then next time I do pacman -S otherpgoram or pacman -Syu it goes fine, there is nothing from thatprogram which complains or bugs me. Unlike Ubuntu/Debian where apt-get install fail and thus everything I try to do now will fail unless I resolve the fail. pacman also has far less switches, at least I know only of -Q -Qs -S -Ss -Sy -U and -Ql | grep for something Im looking for. Thats all I need to know really. Like 4 or 5 switches/commands. But look at apt, apt-get {things here but not search!} {ugh so many switchs here} apt-{what its not really called search!?} dpkg-{jesus-christ-so-many-options}
- amyjess 12y ago
  > and thus everything I try to do now will fail unless I resolve the fail. This is exactly why I detest apt. Our products at my last company ran Ubuntu and Mint. I detested dealing with the package manager. I wrote so much stuff to get around apt when dealing with software packages. I wrote a Maven-based update system (with user-friendly wrappers) for pulling down updates on customer units, and my boss wrote an SVN-based solution for internal dev work. I wrote our own validation system to determine if a package can be safely installed, and if it passed, it'd get shoved in with dpkg -i --force-all, because I didn't trust dpkg to do it itself. I wrote a meta-package system (basically a tarball of debs + a manifest file) so I could guarantee atomic installation (read the manifest, verify every deb in the metapackage, and abort before installing anything if even a single package fails verification). > pacman also has far less switches, at least I know only of -Q -Qs -S -Ss -Sy -U and -Ql | grep for something Im looking for. Thats all I need to know really. Like 4 or 5 switches/commands. -Qo is pretty useful, too.

by plorg 12y ago

antocv 12y ago

> the myriad switches for pacman. Pacman doesnt leave me with a broken package-manager when a package fails to install. For example pacman -S thatprogram and if it fails, then next time I do pacman -S otherpgoram or pacman -Syu it goes fine, there is nothing from thatprogram which complains or bugs me. Unlike Ubuntu/Debian where apt-get install fail and thus everything I try to do now will fail unless I resolve the fail. pacman also has far less switches, at least I know only of -Q -Qs -S -Ss -Sy -U and -Ql | grep for something Im looking for. Thats all I need to know really. Like 4 or 5 switches/commands. But look at apt, apt-get {things here but not search!} {ugh so many switchs here} apt-{what its not really called search!?} dpkg-{jesus-christ-so-many-options}

amyjess 12y ago
> and thus everything I try to do now will fail unless I resolve the fail. This is exactly why I detest apt. Our products at my last company ran Ubuntu and Mint. I detested dealing with the package manager. I wrote so much stuff to get around apt when dealing with software packages. I wrote a Maven-based update system (with user-friendly wrappers) for pulling down updates on customer units, and my boss wrote an SVN-based solution for internal dev work. I wrote our own validation system to determine if a package can be safely installed, and if it passed, it'd get shoved in with dpkg -i --force-all, because I didn't trust dpkg to do it itself. I wrote a meta-package system (basically a tarball of debs + a manifest file) so I could guarantee atomic installation (read the manifest, verify every deb in the metapackage, and abort before installing anything if even a single package fails verification). > pacman also has far less switches, at least I know only of -Q -Qs -S -Ss -Sy -U and -Ql | grep for something Im looking for. Thats all I need to know really. Like 4 or 5 switches/commands. -Qo is pretty useful, too.