Re: apt-get upgrade behaviour versus apt-get install package with respect to netscape,
On 15 Oct 2000, David Z Maze wrote:
> Michael P Soulier <msoulier@storm.ca> writes:
> MPS> On Sun, Oct 15, 2000 at 11:08:34AM -0400, Walter Tautz wrote:
> WT>
> WT> New versions of currently installed packages that cannot be
> WT> upgraded without changing the install status of another package
> WT> will be left at their current version. An update must be
> WT> performed first so that apt-get knows that new versions of
> WT> packages are available.
> MPS>
> MPS> I'm not sure how to read that. During an upgrade, you almost
> MPS> always have to change the install status of another package, so
> MPS> how does that work?
>
> If package foo upgrades from version 0.0-1 to 0.0-2 without changing
> dependencies, apt-get upgrade will go ahead and upgrade it. If
> package bar upgrades from version 0.1-3 to 0.2-1, but version 0.2-1
> also has a dependency on libbaz1 which wasn't previously installed,
> APT won't do the upgrade (because libbaz1 would change from "purge" to
> "install").
>
> apt-get dist-upgrade *will* go ahead and upgrade everything,
> regardless of what the new dependency situation is.
>
OK. but isn't that just a little confusing? the word upgrade versus dist-upgrade. Afterall
if I am upgrading something presumably I am upgrading my distributrion? Just nitpicking
I guess. Of course dist-upgrade almost sounds like an upgrade. I suppose this is just
to make the tool apt-get more flexible. And perhaps it shows that the apt-? tools
are indeed meant to be used by the upcoming frontend apt tool that has yet to appear? Just
wondering not criticizing ;-)
-walter
Reply to: