Re: debian 2.2r3 ?
> Ethan Benson <erbenson@alaska.net> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 01:22:16PM -0400, Hall Stevenson wrote:
> > >
> > > I track unstable/sid and also routinely do "apt-get upgrade"
> > > with no apparent problems. Every once in a while, I'll answer
> > > 'no' to doing the upgrade and then do a "apt-get -u dist-upgrade"
> > > and will have the exact same packages to be updated. Other
> > > times it will want to update different ones.
> > >
> > > I must admit that I'm confused... is there much reason to do
> > > "upgrade" vs "dist-upgrade". I get the idea I should start using
> > > the latter just about all the time.
> >
> > i don't see any point to using upgrade instead of dist-upgrade.
>
> But surelly upgrade has some use, I mean, there's probably some
> situation in which you would prefer to use upgrade in place of
> dist-upgrade, could someone please shed some light in this isue?
I'm going back to using "upgrade" and not "dist-upgrade". The way I see
it now, "dist-upgrade" will update existing packages that I have
installed, but it will also *add* new packages that are marked as
required, recommended, etc by some maintainer. The way I see it, I don't
have a "pure" Debian distro anymore. I have my own customized one, with
the packages I want and ones I don't want removed, regardless if someone
else thinks I should have them.
With "apt-get upgrade", I will stay current with the packages I have. If
they require a new dependency, apt-get can handle it just fine.
This same feature is what annoyed me with Redhat and Mandrake. I would
install either distro and then purge things I'll never use (Emacs, for
example). Then, I'd get a new disc for the latest and greatest version
of the distro and choose the "upgrade" option when installing it. Once
again, it adds in new programs, many of which I don't want, like, or
will never use. It became routine for me to spend too much time "fixing"
things back to the way they were.
Regards
Hall
Reply to: