Re: debian-faq: Patch4 to change apt-get / apt-cache into apt
Hi,
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 02:20:31PM +0200, Holger Wansing wrote:
> Joost van Baal-Ilić <joostvb-debian-doc-20160416-2@mdcc.cx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:06:44PM +0200, Holger Wansing wrote:
> > >
> > > now the fourth patch, which documents the new apt command, as an
> > > alternative for apt-get / apt-cache.
> > >
> > > My approach is, to list both variants in examples, means the old
> > > apt-get command, and the new apt command.
> >
> > I'd list just "apt", and drop "apt-get" from the examples.
>
> Yes, that would be the other approach.
> But I am not sure, what is better. Replacing "apt-get" with "apt" would only
> work in some examples, so some would say "apt install ..." and others
> would say "apt-get source ...".
> Or "apt show ..." versus "apt-cache showpkg ..."
I'd mention 'apt show' and I'd choose to no longer mention 'apt-cache showpkg'.
> Maybe that's more confusing than a simplification?
I feel it's simpler now: In most common cases, apt is what you need to handle
packages. For most cases, one no longer needs to figure out if one would need
apt-get or apt-cache or aptitude or ....
> > > I added a sentence which gives a declaration about the new apt binary.
> >
> > I'd add a sentence like: "The apt tool merges functionality of apt-get and
> > apt-cache; and by default has a fancier colored output format, making it more
> > pleasant for humans. For usage in scripts, apt-get is still preferable."
>
> apt tool only merges *some*functionality* of apt-get and apt-cache, not
> everything.
> So it should probably say "For usage in scripts or advanced use cases,
> apt-get is still preferable or needed."
Yes, that's better.
Bye,
Joost
Reply to: