Re: "upgrade" vs "dist-upgrade"
on a side note, i've been wodering something. i have two boxes, one potato, one woody. from what i understand, the "dist-upgrade" will let some packages to be removed (converted) to other (replacement) packages while "upgrade" won't.
on that thought, on the potato box... sources.list points to "stable" not "potato"... so, when woody becomes stable, (assuming the "stable" is a symlink on the server... would an apt-get update and upgrade automatically take you to woody?... or, once woody becomes stable, should i do a "dist-upgrade" at least once?
thanks,
jason
On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 11:42:03AM +0100, Hans Ekbrand wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 11:00:58PM +0100, Viktor Rosenfeld wrote:
> > Bob Koss wrote:
> >
> > > Viktor> So, if you "upgrade" to woody, better use "dist-upgrade".
> > >
> > > If I'm already tracking woody, should I be routinely using "upgrade"
> > > or "dist-upgrade" ?
> >
> > dist-upgrade.
> >
> > Now following the thread, there seems to be some discussion about the
> > answer. Some people suggest using mainly "upgrade" and "dist-upgrade"
> > only on occasions. Care to tell, why?
>
> After reading the thread, I have learnt some things. My first answer was based on my current practice, and I still think "upgrade" is good enough. But on the as you suggest, why not always use "dist-upgrade", what is the price?
>
>
--
registered linux user #202942
http://counter.li.org/
----------------------------
http://www.theigloo.dhs.org
Reply to: