[solved] google repository for chrome browser issue

[oldgranola]

Hello,
When applying updates via synaptic or apt I get

Code: Select all

E: Repository 'http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb stable Release' changed its 'Origin' value from 'Google, Inc.' to 'Google LLC'
N: This must be accepted explicitly before updates for this repository can be applied. See apt-secure(8) manpage for details.

I know how to change the uri/url but not this bit. I assume it has to due with keys vs explicit name change for the origin value. Went to googles ppa instruction page https://www.google.com/linuxrepositories/ and tried to apply this

Code: Select all

wget -q -O - https://dl.google.com/linux/linux_signing_key.pub | sudo apt-key add -

but got the same error. Do we just have to wait for them to fix?

Thanks

[gm10]

Code: Select all

apt update -y

[oldgranola]

Right out of the man page:>) Thanks! Solved.
So what is the difference between

Code: Select all

apt-get update

which returned the error and

Code: Select all

apt update

? which fixed it and allowed me to upgrade chrome. I see the -y switch is just to run with 'yes' assumed

[redlined]

Right out of the man page:>) Thanks! Solved.
So what is the difference between

Code: Select all

apt-get update

which returned the error and

Code: Select all

apt update

? which fixed it and allowed me to upgrade chrome. I see the -y switch is just to run with 'yes' assumed

hi oldgranola!

the only difference I can find between apt and apt-get is the former seems the modern package, better details in --help anyways, otherwise apt-get has one huge difference as noted at last line of output for apt-get --help

This APT has Super Cow Powers.

[gm10]

Right out of the man page:>) Thanks! Solved.
So what is the difference between

Code: Select all

apt-get update

which returned the error and

Code: Select all

apt update

? which fixed it and allowed me to upgrade chrome. I see the -y switch is just to run with 'yes' assumed

Why ask if you already know about man pages. Straight from apt's man page:

DESCRIPTION
apt provides a high-level commandline interface for the package management system. It is intended as an end user
interface and enables some options better suited for interactive usage by default compared to more specialized APT tools
like apt-get(8) and apt-cache(8).

apt-get has no interactivity, so you would have had to run it like this (information you could also have found in the manual I'm sure):

Code: Select all

sudo apt-get update --allow-releaseinfo-change-origin

Show a little initiative. Knowing there's a manual is only half the job. Reading the thing is what brings enlightenment.

[philotux]

Here are a couple of articles on the subject of apt and apt-get:
https://itsfoss.com/apt-vs-apt-get-difference/
https://www.maketecheasier.com/apt-vs-apt-get-ubuntu/

[redlined]

Here are a couple of articles on the subject of apt and apt-get:
https://itsfoss.com/apt-vs-apt-get-difference/
https://www.maketecheasier.com/apt-vs-apt-get-ubuntu/

very cool links, thanks for posting those!

[gm10]

Here are a couple of articles on the subject of apt and apt-get:
https://itsfoss.com/apt-vs-apt-get-difference/
https://www.maketecheasier.com/apt-vs-apt-get-ubuntu/

Wow, just skimming over these, I don't think the second one has a single technically correct sentence. The first one correctly states "This apt which we are discussing here is not the same as the one in Linux Mint".

[philotux]

Here are a couple of articles on the subject of apt and apt-get:
https://itsfoss.com/apt-vs-apt-get-difference/
https://www.maketecheasier.com/apt-vs-apt-get-ubuntu/

Wow, just skimming over these, I don't think the second one has a single technically correct sentence. The first one correctly states "This apt which we are discussing here is not the same as the one in Linux Mint".

Thanks for this! Otherwise, we the uninitiated ones will gobble all the garbage out there!
Thank you for reviewing these links!

Greetings

[redlined]

Here are a couple of articles on the subject of apt and apt-get:
https://itsfoss.com/apt-vs-apt-get-difference/
https://www.maketecheasier.com/apt-vs-apt-get-ubuntu/

Wow, just skimming over these, I don't think the second one has a single technically correct sentence. The first one correctly states "This apt which we are discussing here is not the same as the one in Linux Mint".

Thanks for this! Otherwise, we the uninitiated ones will gobble all the garbage out there!
Thank you for reviewing these links!

Greetings

First link was one I found useful info on, kinda slid right over the linux mint statement

[gm10]

Well, it's still useful, Mint's apt tool forward's a number of commands to Ubuntu's apt, so it's not like the article is completely irrelevant. But if you want to see the difference, run for Mint's apt:

Code: Select all

apt

vs Ubuntu's apt:

Code: Select all

/usr/bin/apt

[philotux]

First link was one I found useful info on, kinda slid right over the linux mint statement

same here!

[ricardogroetaers]

Important Note:
It was Linux Mint who invented the "apt" in 2007.
In 2014, seven years later, Debian liked the idea and introduced the apt, but in a different way. Ubuntu followed the idea.

The problem is that up to the Mint 17.X (version I use) Mint forgot to provide a manual or an updated help for your own apt.

This hinders the knowledge and consequently the use of the Mint apt by the users. I am included in this group.

Here's a reminder for the Linux Mint developers.
You can not know how to use something without its instructions. No one is born knowing or possessing "crystal ball".

[MrEen]

Important Note:
It was Linux Mint who invented the "apt" in 2007.
In 2014, seven years later, Debian liked the idea and introduced the apt, but in a different way. Ubuntu followed the idea.

The problem is that up to the Mint 17.X (version I use) Mint forgot to provide a manual or an updated help for your own apt.

This hinders the knowledge and consequently the use of the Mint apt by the users. I am included in this group.

Here's a reminder for the Linux Mint developers.
You can not know how to use something without its instructions. No one is born knowing or possessing "crystal ball".

I think your source may be wrong. Here's wikipedia's version of the history of apt.

APT was introduced in 1998 and original test builds were circulated on IRC. The first Debian version that included it was Debian 2.1, released on 9 March 1999.[27]

[gm10]

I think your source may be wrong. Here's wikipedia's version of the history of apt.

APT was introduced in 1998 and original test builds were circulated on IRC. The first Debian version that included it was Debian 2.1, released on 9 March 1999.[27]

No he's actually correct. The wikipedia article talks about the APT source package. Despite the name, it did not contain an actual apt command until 2013 I believe. Mint originally introduced their apt command as a bash script and later ported it to python long before that. They probably inspired Debian's version.

The problem is that up to the Mint 17.X (version I use) Mint forgot to provide a manual or an updated help for your own apt.

Unfortunately few of the Mint tools have a man page, I guess nobody likes to write documentation. apt leaves Debian's manual unmodified, but at least it has the apt help <command> to show you what command it would really run, and you can check that command's manual then.

[MrEen]

Ahh, thanks for that.

And my apologies to ricardogroetaers.

[ricardogroetaers]

Clarification:
Current source:
  https://linuxmint.com/rel_sarah_xfce_whatsnew.php

Note:
  A slightly longer text on the same subject, I read somewhere on the Linux Mint site but I never found it again.

...... , but at least it has the apt help <command> to show you what command it would really run, and you can check that command's manual then.

Thanks for the "apt help".
Although the output of "apt help" seems to be incomplete, I already saw in "Monthly News" apt parameters that are not on the list, for me it was an advance.
Take into consideration that I use Linux Mint 17.3. Maybe in newer versions more instructions are present.

[gm10]

Although the output of "apt help" seems to be incomplete, I already saw in "Monthly News" apt parameters that are not on the list, for me it was an advance.
Take into consideration that I use Linux Mint 17.3. Maybe in newer versions more instructions are present.

The output of apt help on its own is incomplete, yes. Even on 19.1. I have a pull request open to address that but that and a ton of other issues with Mint's apt but that one's going nowhere.

But I didn't say to use it on its own, I meant apt help <command> for a specific command to show you what command it will actually run. That one always works, even for unlisted commands. Example:

Code: Select all

apt help update

On LM17.3 you'll see it's actually using apt-get for that. So you can check apt-get's manual man apt-get now for further information on the command.

[ricardogroetaers]

I understood. In fact Mint's idea of creating a friendly "shortcut" front end for the "apt" management pack is good.
But it does not justify so much work for a command line application when you have graphical applications that implement much more features the same functionality. As an example we have Synaptic and the "Sources of Applications".

[gm10]

But it does not justify so much work for a command line application when you have graphical applications that implement much more features the same functionality. As an example we have Synaptic and the "Sources of Applications".

To each their own. I'm a command line person, I got no trouble justifying the work.