Re: Update on my update problem with gnome system.
On Tue 29 May 2018 at 18:38:40 (+0300), Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2018 09:14:12 -0400 Greg Wooledge said:
> > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 09:31:14PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote:
> > > apt or apt-get upgrade does upgrade in passive mode: It never install new
> > > packages, never removes existing ones. Just upgrades existing ones as far as
> > > possible.
> > > I never use apt, so I am relying on the man page.
(That got snipped.)
> > That's incorrect. One of the differences between apt and apt-get is
> > that apt WILL install new packages when doing "apt upgrade" (but it
> > will not remove existing packages).
> > Another difference is that apt will remove all of the .deb files from
> > /var/cache/apt/archives that were downloaded for the CURRENT apt command
> > session (but will not remove any that were already there). (This
> > behavior can be changed in a config file.)
> Hmm yes, apt upgrade do install new packages. I didn't look at the man page for
> apt and assumed that -at least- the same keywords would work the same in both
> apt and apt-get. I was wrong.
> I wonder why apt should be so close to apt-get but confusingly different. One
> has dist-upgrade with certain functionality, the other has full-upgrade with
> different functionality. Upgrade function works different between them. Who
> knows what else.
> AIUI apt-get is the older and more complete tool. I don't know what was the
> reason for inventing apt. It is not higher level, it is not as complete as
> apt-get, it is not conformant (to apt-get). Perhaps the idea was to unify
> apt-get and apt-cache into one tool, but it was done badly IMO.
It wasn't designed to unify, but to cherry-pick the parts most used by
the "less sophisticated" (for want of a better term) user. This
explains the defaults chosen for it. It may also evolve with time in
a way that might make it hazardous for script users, particularly if
they don't keep up with the man pages.
Wisely, the OP quoted the precise commands they used, something that
all too often doesn't happen. The confusion over command/actions arose
later in the thread for no good reason. That's not the fault of apt
> I don't use apt anyway. Sticking to good old apt-get and apt-cache.
Their aim is to preserve their interface across upgrades, so that scripts
using them (as recommended) don't require incessant modification.