I've known about
apt-cache for quite some time, but only yesterday stumbled on
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.