Hello Mark, On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Mark Billings wrote: > developed within the project. apt is a second command-line based front > end provided by APT which overcomes some design mistakes of apt-get." > > This got me interested, and I wondered what design mistakes were being > talked about. I turned to Stack Exchange to ask my question: > > http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/270511/how-is-apt-the-new-and-improved-apt-get > > I got a really good answer from Faheem Mitha, in which they quoted Michael > Vogt: > > "'design mistakes' is a bit of a strong word - we are just > scared of changing anything in apt-get because it's used in a gazillion > scripts by now. 'apt' lets us do that plus it's easier to type and we > can combine apt-get/apt-cache. so I think the answers are all fine, the > key part is really that apt is more convenient to use/type. > [snip] > the gist is that apt/apt-get/apt-cache all share the same library and > code, just some tweaks to the default." > > (Turns out that Faheem posted my question on the IRC Channel.) > > I think that this section should probably be updated to reflect this > better.
Thanks for the suggestion, we will consider this for the next release but in the mean time I stand by my words. The "design mistakes" are about the interface of the command line... for example "apt upgrade" having the right to install packages is important. Being able to show details of packages in the same command is important too. Even though both commands are very close in terms of run time behaviour, those interface differences matter. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Support Debian LTS: http://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html Learn to master Debian: http://debian-handbook.info/get/
