by Eck » 2007-11-23 04:55
No, it shouldn't mess it up but if removing one of those programs later then it'll just remove the program itself and unused dependencies. You might want to check the aptitude show for those packages you used apt-get for and see if the recommends, if any, listed there are installed on your system as apt-get (at least before the very latest apt-get) did not install those. But in general for the future if you're going to want to take advantage of aptitude then you should use it alone.
There is no difference between dist-upgrade and full-upgrade. It's just that the newer versions of aptitude now use safe-upgrade instead of upgrade and full-upgrade instead of dist-upgrade. To take into account users who haven't caught on to this yet, they have aptitude answer to either term appropriately.
I've read that apt has been updated to also install recommends automatically by default. Not sure whether that has reached Lenny yet. Still, it does not keep track of automatically installed packages so it can remove those when you uninstall the main package like aptitude does.
When I install something I usually check out the package I want with aptitude show so I can write down any suggested packages it lists. I may or may not want those so it gives me a chance to look those up for myself and make a decision about them. I nearly always want the recommended packages so I've been happy that aptitude has always taken care of those automatically for me.
Sometimes some of the recommended packages in the lists are old versions of things that have replacements and so aptitude will either say it is not installing them because in Debian something like that would be a conflict if the package was prepared correctly, and these types of things are handled automatically quite nicely, OR it will be confused because the packages have a boo boo and do not list conflicts. In that case, nicely too, aptitude will start its attempts to resolve the dependencies and you can see printed out just what packages are causing the problems. You can then quit out of the install and aptitude show the various packages and in general it will be obvious to you as to which packages to keep and which look older and so can be replaced. Sometimes just installing the newer one and removing the older one will then let you go ahead and aptitude install the original package you wanted and this time aptitude will not have a problem with it.
So, some things are automatic and some aren't, but it's pretty easy to stop what's going on if it doesn't quite look right and fix things up by taking a look at the packages aptitude was listing.
The GUI tools usually do not give as much info, and when they go ahead and automatically try to install things and they wind up partially installed with some obscure errors listed, you will curse yourself for not using the less pretty but more descriptive and user interactive aptitude.
Basically, just getting used to playing with aptitude from the command line will enable you to stop problem installs before proceeding, give you an understanding of how to make things right, and keep your system stable and without half installed, broken packages lying about.
The only thing similar I've seen is OpenSUSE's YaST Software Management from the qt interface (not the new GTK interface which offers less information and so more potential to get a damaged system). Folks sometimes don't like it because it is slow, however I have found it to have similar capabilities in resolving potential hiccups as does Debian's aptitude. And all that from a pretty GUI too!
It has nice stuff, sort of like aptitude on steroids. For example, I can use an older version of something if it has had an Online Update fix for it whereas a newer version hasn't. I can choose an older version from a 3rd party repo that includes extra multimedia codecs I desire whereas the newer version does not. So I can selectively upgrade package for package. Kinda neat! No other GUI package manager can do the things YaST can.
Smart can wreck a system doing upgrades automatically, whereas YaST can be fully user controlled and have problem packages skipped, staying with the versions the rest of the system doesn't conflict with, and the remainder upgraded. When the rest of the system gets the upgrades needed to make the problem packages work, then there will no longer be a YaST resolver complaint and the user can proceed to upgrade those as well.
Unfortunately, it really takes a user to explore into both Aptitude and YaST to discover neat system saving devices such as these. They are not things that can be listed step by step in guides. It is part of the learning process in Linux. So, the best advice for a new user is to stick with what is known to be stable. In Debian that is Etch, in SUSE that is 10.3 without adding zillions of repositories (like me, but I like new stuff and know my way around to keep things stable, I hope). The less upgrading, the less chance of messing up a good thing.
As long as this stuff looks confusing, that means it is something one shouldn't be doing if they want to keep their systems running smoothly. Once this technical jargon looks like it makes sense, then more risks taken will be successful because one will understand how to deal with situations that come up. An experienced user will be able to deal with strange things that come up in a few minutes. He understands the tools to use and how to go about using them. A new user is probably better off avoiding the latest untried software versions until such time as fixing things will only take a few minutes. Any longer and then one isn't using their computers, the computer is taking up time with busy work instead of getting real work (or play) done.
That's why, since we're talking Debian here, I would say that a new Linux user would probably be happier with their Debian experience by running the officially released Etch, at least at first while they are learning about the various tools and software. Very little upgrades to be concerned about. Those that are available are important for security or fix important bugs. One can watch the tools in action and learn their way around.
Yeah, Lenny is better once one is at home in Debian because new software versions and new software to Linux bring some nice new features along with them. Usually all this appears in Lenny within weeks after being released upstream, after a period of trial while in Sid. So we keep up with the Jones's better. But it's testing, so occasionally hiccups will occur. Better to be a bit experienced in dealing with hiccups before barging in.
But wait. Other distro's get these new versions quicker so doesn't that make them better? The answer is no, because their users get all the bugs that haven't been fixed yet, need to research work arounds to use until updates and fixes are figured out and released by the distro, and sometimes these things aren't fixed until 6 months go by and a new distro version comes out. In Debian, with it's rolling releases, as soon as a fix works we get it. No more work around needed and Lenny grows towards its ultimate goal of being the next official Debian stable release. Fun to watch it grow! But frustrating if things break on the way, especially to someone who needs to take all day to fix things only because they don't understand the Debian tools available yet.
Okay, I'll shut up now. Did I mention I tend to ramble? Sorry, but I hope some of that helps!
Lenovo z560 Laptop Nvidia GeForce 310m Hitachi 500GB HD Intel HD Audio 4GB RAM