Re: Questions about apt-get upgrade/install semantic
Gunnar Wolf a écrit :
>It is not only that - It is because apt-get is an infrastructure
>manager, not an individual package manager. dpkg does work on single
>packages, but apt-get works on the whole collection - and it could
>lead to inconsistencies if you let apt-get do a half-assed job and
>upgrade just one out of many packages - There might be dependencies
>down there, and this kind of command would not follow them (or would
>be inconsistent with the user's wishes of upgrading _only_ that).
Well, ok for that, but I was speaking of the non-trivial upgrade. I mean
when upgrade e.g. samba, I want to upgrade it and, of course all its
needed dependency upgrade.
dpkg of course is great for installing a package alone. But I was
wondering why apt-get install <package> does an upgrade if I don't have
the latest version (that is ok the default behaviour) and why apt-get
upgrade <package> doesn't do that thing. It seemed to be strange... But
what everyone says in this thread can justify such a thing.
But I would find more logical to do install to install a package... If
it is already installed, why not, upgrade it... but it is an upgrade and
not an installation. So I whish that apt-get upgrade <package> do the
same as apt-get install <package> (well I know that upgrade roughly
consists in removing the package and installing the new one).
Cheers ;) ,
Martin Braure de Calignon
"Debian addict, active member of Amaya (Amayita)'s fan club (and fan of her tatoo)"