Question incorrectly duped

Question

It's my opinion that this question: How can I make apt-get wait for another instance to finish? should not have been duped to How to make a package manager wait if another instance of APT is running?.

The first question had better answers (3 useful answers vs 1 useful and 2 negative score answers). It also covered the 1 useful answer from the second question slightly better.

So, I'd like for the second question to be closed as a duplicate of the first, even though it was asked first, the first is a better question.

The reason being is that I'd like to add another answer which extends upon Radu's to the question where his was posted. If my recommendation above doesn't happen, I'd be unsure about whether to post it in the second one (it seems out of place, any suggestions?).

Answer 1

Actually, both questions have nothing to do. Let's quote the older:

I have seen many softwares such as Update Manager and Synaptic Package Manager, they wait if some other program is using the apt-get and is locked.

He used the term apt-get due is how is called normally, but the name should be either dpkg or APT. This behavior can be reproduced with whatever, synaptic, aptitude, gdebi, USC.

How can we do this through the Terminal?

He's asking how the behavior (that one GUI package manager waits for others to finish) can be reproduced using the terminal. In this case, the backend (aptd) is the only answer (until PackageKit comes along).

I saw apt-get's manual but didn't find anything useful.

He's presuming apt-get is the one doing the operations, when in reality apt-get never gets called, since apt daemon comes in play.

I'd like for the second question to be closed as a duplicate of the first, even though it was asked first, the first is a better question.

Actually none of them is duplicated of the other. The later is asking "how to imitate the GUI's behavior of waiting for others instances of APT" and the first is asking to make apt-get specifically wait for another instances running (characteristic that is not featured in apt-get).

Answer 2

I am glad to see this question come up. I have the same thing happening in a couple of questions I have posted. Mine was marked duplicate and though it seemed by part of the content to be the same, the question asked was about a different function of the operating system, not covered by the first which was said to be duplicated.

The same thing happened here, in this post:

Could comments be allowed from 20+

I am not forthcoming of this before now because some of the argument for marking mine duplicate was a non-argument. I do not understand an answer to a question is that the question has been asked before, nor because "they say so". That, "argument from authority" which was used is illogical. Argumentum ab auctoritate), Mi question was given in hope that spekaing from authority would cause an improvement in communication between those with little computing skill and large intelligence and feeling.

I would like to mention that the reason this question was answered in the first place is because of the need for me to address subjects in a proper Answer and not in a simple comment. This was never addressed. The same occurs in this question.