Op 20-07-17 om 18:58 schreef Fungi4All:
> Does it matter what we all think, even if agree or it matters what
> the manual of the package says. In my installation this is manual
> I found, it says apt all over the place, meanwhile there is apt-get
> package to install. /usr/share/man/man8/apt-get.8.gz
>
> In my repositories the only mention of apt-get is in cron-apt
> and its dependency says apt. Its description says:
> automatic update of packages using apt-get
> There is also apt-utils, dep apt, apt-get not mentioned
What are you on about? Are you even aware of what this set of tools
actually is? You certainly make it sound like you aren"t.
Apart from a number of packages with related utilities, there has only
ever been a package called apt. So that"s what people refer to. You
won"t find an apt-get or apt-cache package. Those are just executables
provided by the apt package.
Until (faily) recently, the apt package had no executable called apt.
Look at the apt manpage. Among other things, it mentions what this "new"
executable was created for. And this bit is particularly interesting:
All features of apt(8) are available in dedicated APT tools like apt-
get(8) and apt-cache(8) as well. apt(8) just changes the default value
of some options (see apt.conf(5) and specifically the Binary scope).
So you should prefer using these commands (potentially with some
additional options enabled) in your scripts as they keep backward
compatibility as much as possible.
In other words, by all means use apt on the command line, just don"t do
it in scripts. That ought to tell you something.
It told me, all I needed to know. Thanks!