Apt, apt-get, or aptitude?

there's like three different package managers for debian and debian-based systems. Which one is best and why?

Attached: apt.png (300x257, 55K)

they're all shit

I don't know, I just double click on a .deb file... apt has a nice percent bar tho and it's the shortest to write.

apt-get --help | grep Powers
apt --help | grep Powers

'nuff said.

dpkg for surgical procedures

apt for manual tasks like updating/installing small pacakges

aptitude for package dependency conflicts

apt-get for scripting

t. butthurt baby who got so triggered he had to give his opinion on software he considers 'shit'

You sure showed us lad :^)

I just use apt on my debian server.

isn't apt just a shortened command for apt-get?

A few years ago, apt and apt-get each had their own installed package list, so you should have used either one or the other, but not both interchangeably.
Not the case any more tho.

.configure
make
sudo checkinstall

>builds and installs a .deb package from source code.

Attached: CopyQ.wZ2890.png (611x100, 9K)

also works for slackware and .rpm distros btw.

zypper or yum
apt* need not apply.

indeed portage is the best package manager

Yes, but also it's "more user friendly". What that really means is apt-get is designed to be highly scriptable. The stdout, stderr and api NEVER change because of this. Regular apt doesn't have this restriction so it sometimes gives friendlier messages.

Nice, now how do you get that to update with the rest of the system?

bimp

apt update && git pull

pacman -S.

>yum

Attached: boldandbrash.jpg (655x800, 59K)

synaptic if i need to search a bunch, i'm not touching aptitude

As a rule of thumb apt-get is for scripts, dpkg is just a package manager and cannot download packages from the Internet or update repositories, apt is a more user-friendly version of apt-get complete with a colorful UI and more sensible commands, aptitude is an alternative to apt with a better UI and some extra features and Synaptic is a GUI version of apt.

You'll be fine using apt, aptitude or Synaptic daily. There's no point in using apt-get or dpkg.

apt is apt-get with progress bar

I wondered the same thing. My answer was to switch to a distro that is not debian-based.

apt, it's the same apt-get/apt-cache but colors

aptitude is weird front-end dependency that's bloat for regular apt usage. But there's one legitimate use for it and it's to scan for packages by the branch they came from.

Interesting, so apt-get is meant for scripting?
Why then does almost every tutorial or guide for debian and debian-based systems such as Ubuntu use apt-get?

Is there a "pretend" option for apt or apt-get?

Something like the --pretend in Gentoo.

Brainlets write tutorials.

>Why then does almost every tutorial or guide for debian and debian-based systems such as Ubuntu use apt-get?
Because apt is relatively new and people are used to using apt-get

-s or --simulate?

apt-get has that. Thanks.

Xbps

what a clusterfuck

Your tutorials seem all to be outdated or written by retards.

>'nuff said
Kys boomer

apt-* is just front-end
debian's real package manager is dpkg

>apt is a frontend for apt-get/apt-cache
>apt-get is a frontend for dpkg
How long until we get an apt frontend?