> The difference is, upgradepkg will virtually never fail on install, while apt-get has about a hundred things that can fail on install.
That's because dpkg does more. It's designed to ask you questions interactively when configs change and get you to look at things. If you ignore config files and just blindly install new binaries (even yum/rpm do this!) then you end up with an upgrade that "worked" except that the new binaries won't run at all because the config files are now invalid.
Failing silently like that is hardly better. I would say it's objectively worse.
That's because dpkg does more. It's designed to ask you questions interactively when configs change and get you to look at things. If you ignore config files and just blindly install new binaries (even yum/rpm do this!) then you end up with an upgrade that "worked" except that the new binaries won't run at all because the config files are now invalid.
Failing silently like that is hardly better. I would say it's objectively worse.