making deborphan obsolete?

[Lutzer]

Derek Broughton schrieb:
> Lutzer wrote:
> 
>> My understanding of Ubuntu's philosophy is it should "just work". IMHO
>> the system should remain slim and clean even for a newbie who is not
>> aware of such a problem. Because most of the users use apt-get (it is
>> widely used in HOWTOs: "To get rid of problem X execute 'sudo apt-get
>> install Y' and do Z") or Synaptic/Aptitude the problem still remains.
> 
> It may be Ubuntu's problem if Synaptic is not actually using Aptitude itself
> (I don't use Synaptic, but last time I checked, it didn't).

Agree. Last time I checked it did't too. Probable worth a bug report
resp. feature request?

> However, the solution is still aptitude.  It's not ubuntu's fault that HowTo
> writers refuse to get with the program and write "aptitude" instead
> of "apt-get".  If you created some other program that wasn't aptitude,
> deborphan or debfoster, how do you think you'd change the fact that people
> are still giving bad advice?  Deborphan (and debfoster) _is_ obsolete on my

I agree. But I'm not sure about the purpose of Aptitude. Is it a
replacement for apt-get/cache or is the goal to provide a terminal based
frontend to compete with e.g. Synaptic? For the former I would like to
know why  both - apt-get _and_ aptitude - are shipped with Ubuntu?
People couldn't advice to use apt-get anymore if apt-get would not be
included . ;-)

> system.  You won't find unused packages here.
> 
>> Even Windows asks if an unused DLL should be removed when it's
>> application is removed.
> 
> Windows asks if a DLL _it believes_ is unused should be removed - but it
> admits it really doesn't know if it's unused!  Aptitude _will_ get it right
> (though only if you _always_ use aptitude).

right. So Ubuntu could do things better than Windows easily.