16.04 LTS Final Beta Questions

[ventrical]

aptitude and apt-get work the same for many tasks, but for the most tricky cases, such as distribution upgrades (apt-get dist-upgrade vs. aptitude full-upgrade), they have different rules, and aptitude's rules are nearly always better in practice where they disagree.

The reason you see more documentation for apt-get over aptitude is mostly inertia: aptitude has not been the recommended front end to APT for all that long, so much of the existing documentation hasn't been updated, and there are plenty of people who recognise the advantages of aptitude over apt-get but use apt-get reflexively.

apt-get and dist-upgrade have always worked. I have used aptitude and it works well for noobs. It is a safer way to update/upgrade and has a GUI but I prefer cli version as it is so simple.

regards..

[vasa1]

Another point is that I find it quite unfortunate that the new thing is named apt as well. To illustrate, if you go to the online Ubuntu man page which I'm assuming is "official", and search for apt,
for 12.04 you get apt - Advanced Package Tool
for 14.04 you get apt - Advanced Package Tool
for 15.10 you get apt - command-line interface
and
for 16.04 you get apt - command-line interface

I don't usually criticize my betters but was apt all they (Debian or whoever) could come up for this high-level commandline interface for the package management system?

I don't know how current this is, but https://debian-handbook.info/browse/...t.apt-get.html has 6.2. aptitude, apt-get, and apt Commands with nuggets scattered all over. An example involving the much hated (by some) autoremove:

apt-get autoremove will get rid of those packages. aptitude and apt do not have this command: the former because it removes them automatically as soon as they are identified, and the latter probably because the user should not have to manually run such a command. In all cases, the tools display a clear message listing the affected packages.

https://debian-handbook.info/browse/...t.apt-get.html seems more recent.

[QDR06VV9]

This is still not a complete answer but clearer difference's
http://askubuntu.com/questions/44538...pt-and-apt-get

[vasa1]

This is still not a complete answer but clearer difference's
http://askubuntu.com/questions/44538...pt-and-apt-get

I purposely didn't link to that because it's a bit outdated. Even the recent edits there don't do much.

man apt is far more informative, and, I'm assuming, current.

[psychedelicwonders2]

How do I know what version of 16.04 I'm running? I did an original install of an Alpha 2 I think and just last week did a sudo apt update within the terminal and it downloaded a lot of updates it seems.

So does that mean I have the Final Beta version now?

Or should I run one of the following:

sudo apt dist-upgrade
sudo apt full-upgrade

[howefield]

I did an original install of an Alpha 2 I think and just last week did a sudo apt update within the terminal and it downloaded a lot of updates it seems.

That one command will update the sources list on your machine meaning it will be aware of the updated packages but none will be downloaded and installed until you follow up with a further command, apt-get upgrade (or apt upgrade).

[psychedelicwonders2]

Ok thank you for that clarification, I will do so next time I'm on the computer.

[howefield]

Ok thank you for that clarification, I will do so next time I'm on the computer.

If you thought updating the sources.list was a lot of "updates" - be prepared for the actual update

[vasa1]

Any chance someone could outline the differences between the two, 'apt' and 'apt-get'?

I started a thread here for 16.04: 16.04: apt and apt-get (and apt-cache)

[psychedelicwonders2]

If you thought updating the sources.list was a lot of "updates" - be prepared for the actual update

lol nice

So which one should I run one to do the full upgrade?

sudo apt dist-upgrade
sudo apt full-upgrade