Hi... By the time I worked my way through a response, I realize it was too far off-topic for the subject line so it's its own thing now. :)
On 3/26/19, David <bouncingc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. PPS up top here... Actually... as I think on it some MORE... what I just found (last part of what I wrote here)... is a little scary... kinda-sorta. It hints that it's possible for everything like "apt-* [operation]" (AND WHO KNOWS WHAT ALL ELSE) to be manipulated... without User knowledge that it's even a possibility that needs conscious security protection considerations at all times. *hm... sorry.* :) PPPS Some MORE thinking while repeatedly proofreading (to see what common sense point I may be overlooking): Perhaps "apt-cache pkgnames" is drawing from and then somehow expanding upon the functions of its fellow family member, apt-file. The original first part of the email... VERY COOL. Your timing is impeccable. About 3 hours ago, I decided it's time to buckle down and finally self-educate toward creating my own first "real" script. Apt-get is my target. I'm going to take this thread as a good sign. :) As for the apt-* family, I spend *a lot* of time with apt-cache via search, show, policy, and occasionally pkgnames (after it was referenced on Debian-User at some point). Also, the other day, I actively noticed that apt-listbugs has been VERY quiet on Buster *for months*. Yay, Developers, because I remember it often being quite chatty for Stretch! Exiting Stage Right now... with an odd find that has happened more than once recently... I just accidentally tabbed twice instead of hitting "Enter" while "apt-cache pkgnames apt" was on the command line. It happened because I had just double-tabbed seconds before while only "apt" was on the command line. Upon double-tabbing, the "apt-cache pkgnames apt" query output was a list of all the *personal, user-only generated text* files that begin with "apt" within the directory where that command was (erroneously) issued. So I tried a different directory by testing it with a different file name I knew was in there, i.e. "apt-cache pkgnames aaa". On the *FIRST* double-tab clicks, pkgnames amended itself to and then *HALTED* at "apt-cache pkgnames aaaBBBccc0".. So I played along and double-tabbed again. "apt-cache pkgnames" then provided all the files that started with its suggested "aaaBBBccc0" in that second directory. After thinking on it a second, I created a few more files named aaaBBBcccXXX01.jpg, aaaBBBcccYYY02.jpg, and aaaBBBcccZZZ03.jpg. In response to those new additions, "apt-cache pkgnames aaa" amended its secondarily proffered query to a slightly shorter "aaaBBBccc" to account for those new files. What THAT does is additionally exhibit that "apt-cache pkgnames" flies by the seat of its pants during double-tabbing. In other words, it doesn't need another command, e.g. "updatedb", to be run first in order to present all accurate possibilities at any given second in Time. That's a bit wicked strange. Kind of feels a little bit like a seasonally appropriate Easter Egg, but I figure my not knowing about it is possibly just me arriving at the party fashionably late as usual. *grin* PS Double-tabbing "apt-cache pkgnames aaaBBBccc" didn't send those text file results to a ">" text file when asked to do so. A query results filled text file *was* created when "Enter" was clicked instead of double tabbing. Cindy :) -- Cindy-Sue Causey Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA * what'd I break THIS time? *
