Hi, On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 02:20:31PM +0200, Holger Wansing wrote: > Joost van Baal-Ilić <joostvb-debian-doc-2016041...@mdcc.cx> wrote: > > 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 ..."
I'd mention 'apt show' and I'd choose to no longer mention 'apt-cache showpkg'. > Maybe that's more confusing than a simplification? I feel it's simpler now: In most common cases, apt is what you need to handle packages. For most cases, one no longer needs to figure out if one would need apt-get or apt-cache or aptitude or .... > > > 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." Yes, that's better. Bye, Joost
