[ BTW: no need to CC me. ]
Hi,
Joost van Baal-Ilić <joostvb-debian-doc-2016041...@mdcc.cx> wrote:
> Hi Holger,
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 11:06:44PM +0200, Holger Wansing wrote:
> >
> > now the fourth patch, which documents the new apt command, as an
> > alternative for apt-get / apt-cache.
> >
> > My approach is, to list both variants in examples, means the old
> > apt-get command, and the new apt command.
>
> I'd list just "apt", and drop "apt-get" from the examples.
Yes, that would be the other approach.
But I am not sure, what is better. Replacing "apt-get" with "apt" would only
work in some examples, so some would say "apt install ..." and others
would say "apt-get source ...".
Or "apt show ..." versus "apt-cache showpkg ..."
Maybe that's more confusing than a simplification?
> > I added a sentence which gives a declaration about the new apt binary.
>
> I'd add a sentence like: "The apt tool merges functionality of apt-get and
> apt-cache; and by default has a fancier colored output format, making it more
> pleasant for humans. For usage in scripts, apt-get is still preferable."
apt tool only merges *some*functionality* of apt-get and apt-cache, not
everything.
So it should probably say "For usage in scripts or advanced use cases,
apt-get is still preferable or needed."
Holger
--
============================================================
Created with Sylpheed 3.5.0 under
D E B I A N L I N U X 8 . 0 " J E S S I E " .
Registered Linux User #311290 - https://linuxcounter.net/
============================================================
