Highlight of my Morning

submitted by

https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/pictrs/image/5b4a18ed-2832-4531-b6a9-6c51079c8c0c.webp

Highlight of my Morning
217
781

Back to main discussion

Whoa, do you have something to read up on that? I'd be extremely surprised, since apt-get is supposed to be the script-safe variant, i.e. I'd imagine it's the more stable of the two.

 reply
26
edited

It’s actually just personal experience, but I stopped using apt-get a few years back now because I noticed if I did apt after apt-get there would often be a bunch of packages it missed.

Edit: looks like it might be because apt-get can’t satisfy dependencies install new packages when upgrading while apt can since apt is a suite of different apt tools rolled into one.

 reply
22

Yeah I’m reading a little bit on it, and it seems like apt-get can’t install new packages during an upgrade. On initial reading I was thinking there were specific packages it couldn’t download or something, but this makes sense too. Regardless, this is news to me; I always assumed that apt and apt-get were the same process, just with apt-get having stable text output for awk’ing and apt being human-readable. I’ve been using nala for a long time anyway, but this is very useful knowledge.

 reply
13

I’ve been using nala for a long time anyway

Does Simba know about this?

 reply
8

Wait what.

apt-get is made for scripting, apt is interactive. Both should resolve dependencies. dpkg does not resolve them.

But for interactive usage always use apt, guides using apt-get have no idea what they are doing

 reply
7

You’re right, I misspoke, it’s that it can’t install new packages, it can only upgrade existing ones. I guess I was thinking the only reason it would need to install new packages was if that was a new dependency.

 reply
3

apt-get upgrade --with-new-pkgs

 reply
5

apt generally downloads more things than apt-get on my Debian machine. apt-get never broke anything, but I tend to eye it suspiciously now.

 reply
9