Talk:Aptitude (software)

Untitled

I deleted the bit about Super Cow Powers thinking it was vandalism. I guess it's actually an easter egg in apt-get. However, it's still not relevant to the program's history. --Shimei 06:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I can add it in as a footnote if you want. Although it's not part of the actual workings of the program it is important to the program itself. 90% of discussions about apt-get/aptitude will mention super-cow powers, and even $ aptitude/apt-get --help mentions it.

apt's source says something like "Don't ask, never tell", maybe wikipedia should do exactly this ...

In the part about the Easter Egg, would

$ aptitude -vvv moo

not be better/nicer than

$ aptitude -v -v -v moo

 ? Stuart Morrow 12:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it any better now? --badpazzword (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

dselect is not an apt-forntend, was never one and will probably never be an frontend to apt, this should be fixed in the article. The whole "aptitude might replace dselect"-thing is also utter crap. See for example http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=70;bug=282283 and dselect's changelog.

Notability?

Someone tagged this with “notability” (in Jan 2010). I don’t understand the concern, and there is no discussion, so I’ve removed the tag; if believes that this fails notability, please elaborate here. (My feeling is that this is a fundamental program in a commonly used operating system, is mentioned in discussions of the OS, and hence is notable.)

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Launchpad development?

I'm not sure that the statement than Burrows has moved development to Launchpad is accurate. The Launchpad page is set up to import code from an external VCS. Also, Burrows's own aptitude site states that the source code is handled by Debian git. I think it's fair to deduce that Burrows has simply set up a mirror page on Launchpad so that Ubuntu can track upstream releases more easily. I'll remove the stuff about Launchpad from the article for now, but please let me know if I'm mistaken. Papa November (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Intermixing apt-get and aptitude

"Note that it is bad practice to use aptitude and apt-get interchangeably, as they record changes made by a user separately." -- is this still true? Raphael Hertzog's blog suggests not, but I don't know enough about the ins and outs of these programs to be able to update it. 198.150.76.159 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it is no longer true. Raphael's blog post is correct, and I have been using both tools interchangeably for some time now. I'll update the article and point to the blog.

Stvrly (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

GSoC

I just removed this piece of writing, which OMPIRE had removed before (but which had been reverted):

For the Google Summer of Code (2008), Obey Arthur Liu adopted the idea to develop a GTK+ GUI for aptitude (as well as some usability improvements for the ncurses interface). While the results of the work are still included in Debian, the Gtk+ front-end remains marked experimental. As no one has been found willing to maintain the code, it is likely to be removed at some point.

This is not encyclopedic content. Someone had a plan, wrote about it on their blog, then executed half of it and now there's a Debian package with the result that even the Debian folks don't really want to maintain. All sources are primary. It shows that work is being done on Aptitude, but it doesn't belong in WP, IMHO. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)