* 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, Vineet -- http://www.doorstop.net/ -- http://www.anti-dmca.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature