From all the other Q&A (like: What is the difference between dpkg and aptitude/apt-get?) I understand that apt-get is a wrapper over dpkg and provides dependency management.
Assuming I'm installing something that doesn't have any dependencies (or they're also installed at the same time) would there be any difference between installing it using apt-get vs dpkg
E.g. (kinda concrete differences I'm looking for)
- say
dpkgcan not download the pkg from somewhere, I must download before starting installation, whereasapt-getwill do this on my behalf. dpkgwon't configure pkg, it'll only copy files.apt-getwill configure too.
...
apt-getcan install dependencies from packages installed withdpkg -i. Runapt-get install -fto accomplish that. – Durandal Dec 04 '15 at 14:44apt-getoraptitude, is that they remember whether a package was installed manually (specifically requested), or whether it was installed to fulfill a dependency. That way, when you later remove a package, they are able to automatically remove (or at least tell you about) packages that were "automatically installed and are no longer required". If you installed each package withdpkgthen you'd have to remember and manually remove not only your package but all of its dependencies (assuming nothing else depends on them). – Benjamin Staton Dec 04 '15 at 17:43dpkg -idoes not care about dependencies, everything installed with it is of course installed "manually". – Byte Commander Dec 04 '15 at 17:45