• CoyoteFacts@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    12 小时前

    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.

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      10 小时前

      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.

      • CoyoteFacts@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        11 小时前

        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.

      • boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 小时前

        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

    • ExtremeDullard@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 小时前

      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.