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

Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade

On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 08:38:02AM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote:
> -u enables APT::Get::Show-Upgraded to true which lists what packages are
> going to be updated, but, IIRC, APT::Get::Show-Upgraded is true by
> default.

Yeah.  It didn't used to be so, and many people change it so that it's not.
Using the '-u' option is therefore the only way to get apt to show you what
it's going to do.

Using the '-s' option, on the other hand, *does* the operation, but doesn't
actually do it.  Think "simulate". ^_^

> Yes, I understand the difference between update and dist-upgrade as the
> manual describes it and as it's be re-quoted here a few times.
> 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?

Yes, there is.  For all the reasons stated earlier in this thread.  It
doesn't matter where the packages come from, it only matters what
dependency solution you allow apt to come up with.

The difference being that apt will potentially not upgrade some packages
that have available upgrades, due to some other package having to change

> I've always used dist-upgrade.  IIRC, I have had problems in the past 
> just using "upgrade" with broken dependencies.  I also (IIRC) have seen 
> posts here about not using "upgrade" in Sid.  But reading the manual it 
> seems like "upgrade" should be fine, but more and more packages will be 
> left out of the upgrade due to changing dependencies that happen in Sid.

Correct.  The "upgrade" target does *not* "break" dependencies.  It cannot,
because it does not establish them and has no control over them.  Packages
establish dependencies.  All apt can do is try to solve for a solution that
fits the parameters (and abilities) you've given it.

If that solution means that a package doesn't get upgraded without
intervention, then that package just doesn't get upgraded.  That's hardly
the life-threatening event your average Sid cluebie tries to make it out to

 Marc Wilson |     The public is an old woman.  Let her maunder and
 msw@cox.net |     mumble.  -- Thomas Carlyle

Reply to: