Consider using `apt-get`, `apt-cache`, etc. rather than `apt`

There are two primary reasons for this:

apt displays a progression bar across the bottom of the "terminal" (the *system-packages* buffer, in this case) for a few different subcommands. Emacs doesn't seem to play so nicely with this dynamic element, and ends up just showing a bunch of formatting garbledigook.

According to the apt(8) man page, apt's interface is subject to change, and may break backwards-compatibility. All the functionality of apt is available in other tools.

SCRIPT USAGE AND DIFFERENCES FROM OTHER APT TOOLS
   The apt(8) commandline is designed as an end-user tool and it may
   change behavior between versions. While it tries not to break backward
   compatibility this is not guaranteed either if a change seems
   beneficial for interactive use.

   All features of apt(8) are available in dedicated APT tools like apt-
   get(8) and apt-cache(8) as well.  apt(8) just changes the default value
   of some options (see apt.conf(5) and specifically the Binary scope). So
   you should prefer using these commands (potentially with some
   additional options enabled) in your scripts as they keep backward
   compatibility as much as possible.

jabranham / system-packages

Consider using `apt-get`, `apt-cache`, etc. rather than `apt` #20