Re: Desktop upgrade strategy (was: What should be upgraded first: kernel or userland?)
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 06:52:15PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > - making sure openoffice does not get removed
> > Shouldn't it be easier to get it removed and the reinstall it?
> Same arguments as earlier.
> Problem with openoffice.org is that tasksel used to install
> openoffice.org-bin which depended on openoffice.org. The -bin package no
> longer exists in Etch. This probably should be fixed before the release
> (by adding a dummy openoffice.org-bin package depending on
> openoffice.org). No idea how complex this is when it comes to proper
> Replaces/Conflicts and such.
Well, it's painful in terms of build time certainly. I don't think Rene
would be happy if we asked him for this. :)
> It can however also be worked around with:
> aptitude unmarkauto openoffice.org
And that should be a no-op for users who don't have OOo installed, right, so
this recommendation could be safely included in the release notes with no
danger of side-effects or user confusion?
> > > I do feel that this is probably the only method that is sure to still
> > > work if users get themselves into problems with dependencies and
> > > other methods try to remove half the system.
> > > Maybe document the procedure on a wiki page?
> > I'd rather have it described in the Release Notes, that is what gets
> > shipped off with the CDs, relying on online documentation is not good
> > (unless it's stuff not needed for the upgrade but just "for reference")
> I don't think it is a good idea to fully document two different and
> partially conflicting methods. My idea was to document it in the wiki and
> link to that from the RN. However, from a translation viewpoint it may be
> better to have it in the RN, but then I would suggest an appendix.
Perhaps it would be a good idea, though, to use a wiki page to track this
discussion, so we can see what the current upgrade path suggestions (with
pros/cons) are and can refine them incrementally in response to user
testing? I know I've had a hard time tracking this discussion. :/
> > > - apt-get install aptitude
> > > - apt-get install gnome (also restores synaptic)
> On a retest gnome was not removed. Not sure if I made a mistake the first
> time or that anything was different. A bit scary though.
> > Why use apt-get here and not aptitude to install gnome? Isn't it best
> > to recommend the gnome task?
> Because aptitude will want to remove all kinds of packages if you do that
> (packages previously installed as deps but no longer needed). IMO it
> would be better to wait until after the reboot to clean that up.
Uhm? Do I understand that you're suggesting using apt-get instead of
aptitude to *avoid* aptitude's automated handling of packages that one would
want to have removed? That doesn't make sense to me.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: