Re: aptitude upgrade vs. apt-get upgrade
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:44:59 -0400 Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:28:21 +0100 Hector Oron wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > 2011/3/31 Riku Valli <riku.valli@vallit.fi>:
> >
> > > apt-get is now preferred method over aptitude at Squeeze. However at
> > > Lenny aptitude is preferred over apt-get.
> > >
> > > You should use apt-get with Squeeze and aptitude with Lenny.
> >
> > It is recommended on the release-notes for the upgrade from lenny to squeeze.
> > Aptitude should just work fine on squeeze.
> >
> > >>> # aptitude -s upgrade
> > >>> The following packages will be upgraded:
> > >>> bind9-host dnsutils libbind9-60 libdns69 libisc62 libisccc60
> > >>> libisccfg62 liblwres60
> > >>> 8 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
> > >>>
> > >>> # apt-get -s upgrade
> > >>> Reading package lists... Done
> > >>> Building dependency tree
> > >>> Reading state information... Done
> > >>> The following packages will be upgraded:
> > >>> bind9-host dnsutils libbind9-60 libdns69 libisc62 libisccc60
> > >>> libisccfg62 liblwres60
> > >>> tex-common
> > >>> 9 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
> > >>>
> > >>> What's the reason for this?
> >
> > Can you check which it is the status of tex-common, is it held by any
> > reason? aptitude frontend it is very good to find out such things.
> >
> > In anycase, I believe this conversation belongs to debian-user@l.d.o
> > and not debian-security@l.d.o
>
> If there it turns out there is actually a problem in aptitude, then
> keeping debian-security in the loop is a good thing, so don't worry
> about changing mailing list context. This is a fine place for
> discussion.
I probably should have mentioned that a bug report would probably be
more useful since you'll actually get the aptitude maintainers looking
at the problem (if there is one).
Best wishes,
Mike
Reply to: