Hi,
Joost van Baal-Ilić <joostvb-debian-doc-2016041...@mdcc.cx> wrote:
> 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 ....
Should we add a table which lists all the new apt commands and their old
apt-get / apt-cache variants in comparison?
Maybe that would make sense, since you are not always done with simply
replacing "apt-get" with "apt". There are cases, which are not that intuitive:
as an example, "apt-cache showpkg <name>" converts into "apt show -a <name>".
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/
============================================================
