> 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!
