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
dpkg
can not download the pkg from somewhere, I must download before starting installation, whereasapt-get
will do this on my behalf. dpkg
won't configure pkg, it'll only copy files.apt-get
will configure too.
...
apt-get
can install dependencies from packages installed withdpkg -i
. Runapt-get install -f
to accomplish that. – Durandal Dec 04 '15 at 14:44apt-get
oraptitude
, 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 withdpkg
then 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 -i
does not care about dependencies, everything installed with it is of course installed "manually". – Byte Commander Dec 04 '15 at 17:45