Re: Shall I upgrade to Woody?
On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 09:22:06PM +0200, Sigue wrote:
| I know this is a bit to generic question, and it has been probably already
| discussed a 1000 times,
| but I'm fairly new, so please forgive me if I ask it nevertheless.
|
| Is there a big risk in upgrading to Woody now?
^^^
I don't think so.
| What speaks agains it?
Some things could be broken. For example, right now X is. However,
if you check the archives, the fix is as simple as deleting 2
characters from a one-line-long file.
| What is the main advantage in doing so?
Newer stuff. For example, the GNOME in potato is 2 "major" revisions
behind (technically "minor", but they are significant -- not "micro").
There are also some stuff that doesn't exist in potato.
| Also to give a little more background to the question:
| I yesterday foolishly tried to experiment with adding some unoffical sources
| to the apt sources.list.
You can tweak your sources.list then run 'apt-get update' and your
local database will be "fixed".
| 1. Just checking. If I would want to upgrade to Woody, I'd need to add
| 'testing' or 'woody' to the sources.list,
| and then I'd need to issue 'apt-get dist-upgrade'?
'apt-get update' first
| 2. Is it possible to somehow delete the package database, and make apt
| reread the official ones from debian.org?
apt-get update
Sometimes I point my sources at sid. Not all packages are in woody
(eg galeon, recent gnucash). I adjust source.list, run 'apt-get
update' to update the database, 'apt-get install <foo>' to install
foo, put sources.list back, run 'apt-get update' to update the
database. This last "update" makes the woody stuff be the newest that
is known (aside from the installed stuff).
HTH,
-D
Reply to: