Issues like this are probably better reported to the development team of that software:

https://bugs.debian.org/src:aptitude

Probably they (Kali team) just shipping the software can't to much about it until the software received a fix by them (aptitude devs).

Maybe also not even bug:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=836708

General Kali bugtracker seems to be not the place to get support for upstream issues or usage questions.

Why would you want to use aptitude? Everybody use apt these days, that's the official package manager for Debian, thus for Kali. Bugs in aptitude should be reported to Debian bugtracker, we (Kali team) don't have the bandwidth to troubleshoot this kind of issues, sorry.

Hi Arnaud, i just reopened only for answering, please close it again after reading.

You asked why aptitude and not apt. Well, I know about apt and of course of apt-get.

But I like aptitude and prefer it for some reasons. Once, it is a nice ncurses GUI and is running even on systems without X (in opposite to sysnaptic).

The second thing is, I like the beter overview of needed dependencies and sugested packages. I know, apt show dependencies or similar can show this, too, but IMHO this is not as comfotable as in aptitude.

In aptitude I can also click from one dependency to second dependencies (and/or see them), thus it make it relatively easy to uninstall packages with all its dependencies.
The commandline tools do not offer this in this presicsion! All of them got theire strongness and weakness, but aptitude fits my needs best.

Last but not least, I have the feeling, that the database of aptitude is doing a better job than apt-get. For me it is doing it more precisely. You see always a difference between apt-get and aptitude: They sometimes install sligghtly different packages.

And last but not keast: As far as I read (you may correct me) is apt just a wrapper for apt-get and aptitude, it calls whatever it believes is the best for the task.

One last thing: I am using apt-get or apt when doing a full-upgrade. Aptitude can not handle such a big number of packages. My way is, doing an apt-get full-upgrade, and afterwards an aptitude full-upgrade.

This is the way, which fits best for my needs. This is working for many many years for me now.

Hope, I could explain a little bit, why I am preferring aptitude over apt. But alt last I am using them all according to my personal needs and situataions.

Best regards

Hans

P.S. I will file a bugreport to the armhf developers of aptitude if no one else did already.

apt just a wrapper for apt-get and aptitude, it calls whatever it believes is the best for the task.

Not 100% correct, apt is a kind of "top-level" command sitting on top of apt-get and apt-cache. Cf. apt man page, section SCRIPT USAGE AND DIFFERENCES FROM OTHER APT TOOLS. But it doesn't call aptitude at all. apt and aptitude are 2 different things.

I always thought that aptitude was abandoned for a long time, and I never used it myself. Although now I see that it keeps having releases: http://tracker.debian.org/aptitude. So I suppose it's still maintained -- worth opening a bug report in the Debian bugtracker.