On Thursday 16 November 2006 01:25, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 12:02:22AM -0000, peter green wrote:
> > 2: the aptitude part also seems to have been copied straight from the
> > sarge notes, is it still relavent
>
> aptitude in etch is _much_ better at conflict resolution than the one
> in sarge. (However, sometimes the upgrades get too big for it and the
> algorithms start running in exponential time; I'm not sure if we can do
> anything useful with this except document it and ask the user to fix
> some issues manually; even though aptitude offers to abort by itself
> after a certain amount of time, this can be confusing to users.)
Can you elaborate on the "much better"? Much better how or in which
specific cases?
As a test by Bill Allombert has shown [1] that upgrading aptitude by
itself may lead to a number of package removals and an upgrade with
Sarge's aptitude seems to be relatively painless [2], I currently don't
see what is gained by advising to update aptitude first.
For Woody->Sarge there were very strong arguments to update aptitude
first, but for Sarge->Etch my personal feeling ATM is that we should not
do this.
Cheers,
FJP
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2006/11/msg00345.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2006/11/msg00347.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2006/11/msg00358.html
Attachment:
pgpXR_dt2zm3d.pgp
Description: PGP signature