• RustyNova@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I got mistaken. See replies for explanation

    =======

    Apt: get whatever is in the cached package list

    Apt-get: lookup the package to see the latest version and get that one

    Unless you always apt update, apt-get is the go to choice for modern day Linux

    There’s also the apt-apt command, who triggers any audiophile to start complaining about mainstream music quality these days

    • superkret@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      2 days ago

      I disagree. According to Debian’s own documentation, apt is a newer front-end for your daily CLI updating and installing needs.
      It has simplified syntax, and combines the most-used functions and options.
      It is not meant for use in scripts, cause the syntax may change between versions.

      The dependency-solver in the back-end is identical.

      tl/dr:
      apt is shorter to type and will have prettier output, starting with Debian 13.
      Use apt-get inside scripts.

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        My personal experience is that apt-get will absolutely miss packages that apt will capture.

        I was actually surprised by that about six months ago and finally switched over to apt after years of apt-get.

        • superkret@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          That’s actually one of the reasons I switched from Debian to Arch.
          Dependency resolution shouldn’t differ based on which front-end you use.
          Debian has dpkg, aptitude, apt-get, apt, synaptic, the Software Center…
          Fedora has rpm, dnf, yum. SUSE adds a couple more. I don’t get it.
          A linux distro should have one package manager, doing different stuff with it should be done via different commands/options inside it.

          • Rhaedas@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            As a (still) Linux novice, this is something that I noticed with later distributions but never thought about your valid point. I did always wonder why there should be different places to install things in the same OS. It would probably be fine if they handled things the same, but then all you’re doing is changing the UI. It never “felt” like they did things the same.

            • superkret@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              It can’t. I use a very simple script to combine updates and the basics of system maintenance:

              #!/usr/bin/env bash
              systemctl --failed -q
              yay -Pw
              sudo pacman -Syu
              flatpak update
              flatpak uninstall --unused
              pacman -Qqnte > ~/.local/share/applications/pkglist.txt
              pacman -Qqdtt > ~/.local/share/applications/optdeplist.txt
              pacman -Qqem > ~/.local/share/applications/foreignpkglist.txt
              pacman -Qtd
              pacman -Qm | grep -v yay-bin
              sudo find /etc -name *.pac*
              yay -Ps | grep Cache
              
        • mutual_ayed@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Oh sorry.

          install is already a part of make/cmake as well, so it’d break any of those workflows also.

          The joke I thought I was making was “I’m too lazy to type out what I want, let’s just break the system instead.”