On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 05:06:47PM +1000, CaT wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 10:47:09PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > > no. dist-upgrade is much smarter about dependencies then upgrade is. > > i always use dist-upgrade rather then upgrade for that reason. > > Erm? apt-get upgrade refuses to ever remove a package, even if its obsolete, conflicted and replaced by something else. this gets to be a impossible situation with large numbers of packages upgraded. granted you are unlikely to notice on a small update such as security or rX -> rY but using the crippled apt-get upgrade buys you nothing except habit which will bite you later when upgrading something more. for example if you track unstable or testing you must never use apt-get upgrade as it simply doesn't work. even though you are technically not upgrading your `dist' every day, apt-get upgrade is still broken quite often in this circumstance. i choose to simply not ever bother with apt-get upgrade in favor of dist-upgrade. > I see 16 with apt-get upgrade. all depends on what you have installed, dist-upgrade and upgrade will be the same in this case. using dist-upgrade is not going to magically download sid or woody, nor will it reinstall everything in potato. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
Attachment:
pgp1WBOD49Rzv.pgp
Description: PGP signature