This is primarily for my specific use case, of maintaining numerous debian servers (baremetal cryptocurrency nodes, vps-based kubernetes clusters, raspbian, etc, etc.) while preferring to use arch on my personal desktop. It's easier for my brain to not have to jump between different package manager syntaxes on a daily basis. Most pacman
usage can be directly converted to apt
syntax, even though one is a rolling release distribution - and that's what this does.
Is it necessary? no. But it's convenient for me and it might be convenient for a select few other people (or other systems where I install arch in the future)
For the average casual hobbyist user, I don't recommend this. I'd definitely encourage familiarity with pacman
instead of changing the syntax with a wrapper.
Pinned Comments
bbedward commented on 2024-02-28 19:27 (UTC)
This is primarily for my specific use case, of maintaining numerous debian servers (baremetal cryptocurrency nodes, vps-based kubernetes clusters, raspbian, etc, etc.) while preferring to use arch on my personal desktop. It's easier for my brain to not have to jump between different package manager syntaxes on a daily basis. Most
pacman
usage can be directly converted toapt
syntax, even though one is a rolling release distribution - and that's what this does.Is it necessary? no. But it's convenient for me and it might be convenient for a select few other people (or other systems where I install arch in the future)
For the average casual hobbyist user, I don't recommend this. I'd definitely encourage familiarity with
pacman
instead of changing the syntax with a wrapper.