> From: deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Agreed. I was beginning to despair of this list while reading through > this thread. But we seem to live in times when evidence matters less > and less, and assertion more and more. > Sorry about the politics. Anyway, AFAICT according to the Release > Notes, apt-get is preferred over aptitude for the upgrade from > jessie to stretch (where this is relevant); according to the > Installation Manual, apt is the tool of choice, though no preference > is expressed over apt-get which is not mentioned.
Does it matter what we all think, even if agree or it matters what the manual of the package says. In my installation this is manual I found, it says apt all over the place, meanwhile there is apt-get package to install. /usr/share/man/man8/apt-get.8.gz In my repositories the only mention of apt-get is in cron-apt and its dependency says apt. Its description says: automatic update of packages using apt-get There is also apt-utils, dep apt, apt-get not mentioned Aptitude is recommended by apt. If a script in /usr/bin said apt-get = apt would you still use it? Or I could call it pacman or yogurt or apt-get-from-2-decades-ago Nevertheless, the data showed there can be some difference still between the one and the other, in rare occassions like 2 different sid installations of similar packages and similar amd64 machines. How 'bout them apples?
