I've known about apt-cache
for quite some time, but only yesterday stumbled on apt-file
.
My question is, given this kind of output from the two...
ttsiod@avalon ~
$ apt-cache search setxkb
x11-xkb-utils - X11 XKB utilities
xfce4-xkb-plugin - xkb layout switch plugin for the Xfce4 panel
ttsiod@avalon ~
$ apt-file find setxkb
fish: /usr/share/fish/completions/setxkbmap.fish
fish: /usr/share/fish/functions/__fish_complete_setxkbmap.fish
x11-xkb-utils: /usr/bin/setxkbmap
x11-xkb-utils: /usr/share/man/man1/setxkbmap.1.gz
xmanpages-ja: /usr/share/man/ja/man1/setxkbmap.1.gz
zsh: /usr/share/zsh/functions/Completion/X/_setxkbmap
zsh-beta: /usr/share/zsh-beta/functions/Completion/X/_setxkbmap
zsh-common: /usr/share/zsh/functions/Completion/X/_setxkbmap
...why would one bother with apt-cache? Isn't apt-file superior in every way?
I am probably missing something.
EDIT: The reason I am asking is because apt-file reported MORE packages than apt-cache. I only use apt-cache for the use case "I need tool/manpage/whatever named foo - which packages contain foo?" and it seems that apt-file seems to do everything apt-cache does, but better - it reports more packages (apt-cache MISSES some), and it also shows the filenames involved.
apt-cache search
function is looking for packages within repositories.apt-file find
is looking for files within your currently installed packages.