Apt-get vs Pacman

EAD · 2006-03-15 13:30:24

Hii, I have been using apt-get for a long time, and now I want use Pacaman , what I don't know is
What are the befits and drawback of each one compare to the other?
I havn't open this post for "flaming", I want to know and understand more about this topic.
:!:

Sigi · 2006-03-15 14:38:20

Sorry that this sounds a little bit rude, but try it out man!
Pacman is good, maybe apt-get is better, but it's the pacman - ABS - combo that makes the difference IMO.

Moo-Crumpus · 2006-03-15 14:57:08

pacman is easier to use.
Example:

apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade
apt-get update && apt-get upgrade
--------------------------------------------------------
= pacman -Syu

Like apt-get, pacman resolves dependencies, can install and update single, some or all packages.

What it can't is handle wildcards - what I really miss, like
apt-get install gnome* gst-plugin*

Pacman has some weak parts concerning defragmentation, but pacman-optimize from time to time will clean it up.

Sigi · 2006-03-15 15:18:59

I agree with Moo-Crumpus in every point. My previous post was just a kind of valve to express my feeling about my current work *sorry for that*

EAD · 2006-03-15 15:42:25

Why can't it support wild cards?
and will there be a version with this?

Sigi · 2006-03-15 15:47:23

Auto-completion while typing packagenames would also be nice..

elasticdog · 2006-03-15 16:00:00

EAD wrote:

Why can't it support wild cards?
and will there be a version with this?

Although it doesn't support wildcards at this point, you can still search using:

$ pacman -Ss packagename

and also install multiple packages once you know the proper names

# pacman -S gimp ruby screen

EAD · 2006-03-15 16:28:38

Auto-completion and wild card will make me love it so much :twisted:
I think it can be sooo cool!

sh__ · 2006-03-15 16:30:27

Sigi wrote:

Auto-completion while typing packagenames would also be nice..

The bash-completion pkg in [extra] has support for makepkg and pacman.

lessthanjake · 2006-03-15 16:33:43

Install extra/bash-completion and you get bashcompletion for pacman -S.

Sigi · 2006-03-15 16:39:36

sh__ and lessthanjake: Nice to hear, I'll try it out.

Moo-Crumpus · 2006-03-15 16:42:37

how does it enhance pacman, compared to apt-get install a* what would install all packages with "a" as the first letter?

LB06 · 2006-03-15 17:49:53

pacman supports orphans! Great advantage if you want to keep the system mean and lean.

Mr.Elendig · 2006-03-15 22:11:53

pacman has ilovecandy, but apt-get has moo

Anyway this is probaly just all in my mind,but I find pacman to have less problems with deps and missing packages.(never gotten any "dep found but package does not exist" but that probalby has just as mutch to do with the repos as the packagehandeler itself)
I also find pacman (if not hevely fragmented) alot quicker than apt-get. But as stated before, it's all probably just in my head.

ihavenoname · 2006-03-17 02:13:57

Mr.Elendig wrote:

I also find pacman (if not hevely fragmented) alot quicker than apt-get. But as stated before, it's all probably just in my head.

nope its not all in ur head....pacman at this point is faster then apt-get...and MUCH faster then yum which for some ridiculus reason refreashes EVERYTIME u use it which is massively(sp?) time consuming (sry...it makes me ANGRY!!!!) However apt-get has 15000000000000003r530403403043040340 packages due to debian (i assuming that what ur using is a debian based distro as i have never heard of using apt-get on arch....) (yes that number is an exageration...) ne ways if u ask me pacman is the best out there and i have used alot...well not really just 3 or 4 .....i use Fedora as well and there are packages that i can easily install in arch using pacman that i cant in fedora...so pacman > apt-get > yum (althou yum has a cool rollback feature that allows u to restore ur sytem to a specifig time ..like say 5 minutes ago or 3 days ago..etc...but consider that pacman has not been here as long and youll see that pacman should IMO be way ahead in a few years...look at all the new distros that are starting to use pacman....its not like debian..but still..its growing ..baby steps hhahah

jaboua · 2006-03-17 14:22:12

ihavenoname wrote:

(yes that number is an exageration...)

I assumed so when I saw that you included a R in the number

ihavenoname · 2006-03-17 20:37:54

jaboua wrote:

ihavenoname wrote:
(yes that number is an exageration...)
I assumed so when I saw that you included a R in the number

syntax · 2006-03-21 13:27:24

I like pacman more, the packages are more up to date but that depends on the repository off course. Only thing I miss a bit is a search/lookup for packages supporting wildcards...

hypermegachi · 2006-03-22 14:41:15

here's why i like pacman more.

1) built-in orphan capability. apt-get itself cannot check for this. if you installed gaim, and it auto installs gtk for you, once you remove gaim, gtk remains. in pacman, you can specify if you want to cascade remove.

i realize that there is deborphan, and aptitude supports checking this. but to my knowledge, neither are builtin and they have to search the system themselves and calculate it.

2) the system doesn't break after an upgrade

i think every single time i've tried a dist-upgrade i've broken the system. once you get into "apt-get hell" it's such a pain in the ass to fix it you save more time by just grabbing the latest ISOs and reinstalling. that's not acceptable.

mind you, i will let apt off the hook on this one because i always use bleeding edge software. debian sid and ubuntu's dapper have both crapped out on me when i try to dist-upgrade. (upgrading to xorg7 totally screwed everything up). when aptitude suggests about 10 different upgrade paths with 10 different number values postive and negative, or sometimes it says it doesn't know, it doesn't make me happy.

i have never ever experienced pacman breaking my system that i had to reinstall.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-03-15 13:30:24

Apt-get vs Pacman

#2 2006-03-15 14:38:20

Re: Apt-get vs Pacman

#3 2006-03-15 14:57:08

Re: Apt-get vs Pacman

#4 2006-03-15 15:18:59

Re: Apt-get vs Pacman

#5 2006-03-15 15:42:25

Re: Apt-get vs Pacman

#6 2006-03-15 15:47:23

Re: Apt-get vs Pacman

#7 2006-03-15 16:00:00

Re: Apt-get vs Pacman

#8 2006-03-15 16:28:38

Re: Apt-get vs Pacman

#9 2006-03-15 16:30:27

Re: Apt-get vs Pacman

#10 2006-03-15 16:33:43

Re: Apt-get vs Pacman

#11 2006-03-15 16:39:36

Re: Apt-get vs Pacman

#12 2006-03-15 16:42:37

Re: Apt-get vs Pacman

#13 2006-03-15 17:49:53

Re: Apt-get vs Pacman

#14 2006-03-15 22:11:53

Re: Apt-get vs Pacman

#15 2006-03-17 02:13:57

Re: Apt-get vs Pacman

#16 2006-03-17 14:22:12

Re: Apt-get vs Pacman

#17 2006-03-17 20:37:54

Re: Apt-get vs Pacman

#18 2006-03-21 13:27:24

Re: Apt-get vs Pacman

#19 2006-03-22 14:41:15

Re: Apt-get vs Pacman

Board footer