[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Changing from stable to testing.....

Just thinking that since Squeeze is coming up to be the new stable and have been running Lenny since March of 2009, I was wondering about how difficult it would be to change from Lenny(stable) to Squeeze(testing) now. I, previous to purchasing the current mthbd w. the AMD64 chip, had been always running testing w. little problem overall. And when a problem did arise, it was normally fixed in a short time. I've been running Lenny(stable) since the new purchase not because of a problem w. testing, but more because I did not feel I knew enough about the new architecture yet to venture into testing safely. But now I feel more comfortable w. it and have been wanting to possibly make the changeover.

I have found a forum site which speaks to this change dated in 2006 w, Etch(stable) to Lenny(testing) and of course it says to change the sources.lst from Etch to Lenny or to testing if the person wants to stay in testing. And then to apt-get upgrade and then apt-get dist-upgrade and it should all be fine.

Two questions.
1.  With the AMD64 architecture should it be that easy, and

2. I have been using aptitude instead of apt-get for years as I read that it was the new, correct way to do it. And one time w. the older 32 bit system I was running there was actually a difference between apt-get and aptitude as to what was upgraded. I don' t know if that's still the case or not, but would like some input in that regard too, especially w. the 64 bit architecture.

AMD Athlon X2 5200 on an AsusM3A78-CM, onboard nic, audio and video
PSC 1500 AIO printer

I'm interested in doing the change if it is not too difficult as I'm not really to interested in backing up and reinstalling to testing unless I really have to. It just takes so long to get things set up the way I want it again, as you all well know.

Thanks so much in advance for any aid you can give.

Whit, (an accountant who loves linux and so much appreciates all of your work.)

Reply to: