[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade

* Bill Moseley (moseley@hank.org) [031205 08:38]:
> My question is if sources.list specifies "woody" instead of "stable" so 
> dist-upgrade will not someday upgrade to sarge" and since a "stable" 
> distribution should not change dependencies, IS there a difference 
> between using "upgrade" vs. "dist-upgrade" in that case?
> I don't see that there is a difference.

I think the answer is "probably not", but why not err on the side of
caution?  I think it's kind of like the difference between using sudo or
fakeroot to build a deb.  In theory, they should produce the same
outcome.  But why would you issue a more powerful command when a simpler
one will suffice?

On a stable system, upgrade and dist-upgrade should act the same, but
upgrade gives you one extra (albeit small) check to protect you from
yourself.  I guess the only thing up for debate is whether "albeit
small" amounts to "negligible."  I think in most cases it probably does,
and this discussion is academic.  But in certain, off-the-wall
hypothetical scenarios (maybe the security team accidentally uploads a
package that, for no good reason, Conflicts: with your version of
libc6?) using upgrade instead of dist-upgrade will be safer.  Ican't
think of the off-the-wall hypothetical scenario in which dist-upgrade
will be safer.  So since they cost the same (or rather, upgrade costs 5
fewer keystrokes ;-) I'd use upgrade.  But that's just me.

Actually, that's a lie -- I'd use dselect. =)

good times,

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: