On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 03:59, <rlhar...@oplink.net> wrote: > > I saw Debian documentation which says that "apt" has been revised to > correct errors made when coding "apt-get". But then I saw other > documentation which recommended "apt-get" over "apt". I suppose this > question belongs in another thread...
The intention of apt is to provide an easier-to-use human interface to the most common operations, but its interface might be improved from time to time, so don't rely on it in scripts. Whereas the apt-* tools are intended to be powerful low-level tools to use in scripts, so their interfaces never change and they provide all functionality, but consequently they have many complex options. Hence the apt-* tools were created first, and keep growing more options as required. Much later, the team got around to writing and releasing apt. The guides you read that use apt-* probably predate apt. https://itsfoss.com/apt-vs-apt-get-difference/ https://askubuntu.com/questions/445384/what-is-the-difference-between-apt-and-apt-get The important differences to be aware of are probably: apt full-upgrade == apt-get dist-upgrade apt upgrade == apt-get upgrade --with-new-pkgs In other words, 'apt upgrade' does install new packages.
