Re: New APT version
On 10 May 1998, Gregory S. Stark wrote:
> > i agree. if apt can do it and is ready in time for testing then we
> > should certainly drop autoup and use apt instead.
> I disagree strongly. We know what autoup does, it's a simple shell script with
> a fixed sequence of commands that have been carefully thought out and tested
> widely. APT is still in beta, and while it's good that it's fairly predictable
> it cannot be never be quite as reliable as autoup.
I concur. As a user I followed the discussion of using apt instead of
autoup for the bo-hamm upgrade, and tried it out on a non-production bo
machine. libreadlineg2 didn't upgrade successfully, and so lots of useful
stuff like bash segfaults. I think apt needs a little more testing for
these purposes (although it's an *excellent* tool for maintenance of a
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org