on Thu, 19 Aug 2004 01:36:34PM -0400, Greg Folkert insinuated:
> On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 11:49, Nori Heikkinen wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > right, but i can't do that. the rest of my message went on to say
> > that when i try to apt-get upgrade (i've already apt-gotten updated),
> > because i haven't done it in so long, apt tries to upgrade 500+
> > packagest for me, which i don't have the space on /var to do.
> >
> > your solution is great, but i can't apply it until i figure out how to
> > get apt to do only part of those 500+ at a time, to the point where my
> > system is up to date. until then, though, how do i apply a security
> > patch?
> >
> > sorry if that wasn't clear.
>
> Well, what I have always done when I run into problems like that is to
> do this:
>
> apt-get update
> apt-get -u upgrade
> do not agree
> "apt-get install" a few lines of packages from the previous -u
> upgrade line, allowing you to accept the additional D/Ls
> (if any) beside the one you declared.
okay, i get it! i didn't understand how this would help until i tried
it -- what i had been not getting was that apt-get installing a
package that i already had installed would upgrade it if it needed to
be upgraded. i don't think the manpage makes this clear at all --
does anyone else agree this is misleading? if yes, i'll file a bug,
or i'll just update the manpage and submit it as a patch or something
(hmm, not quite sure how i would go about this).
but thanks! doing `apt-get install rsync` did the (completely
counterintuitive) job.
> Painful... yes. Doable, yes but reliable. And then "apt-get clean" after
> every install command.
okay, sure. this is to keep the amount of space in /var down, yes?
</nori>
--
.~. nori @ sccs.swarthmore.edu
/V\ http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/~nori
// \\ @ maenad.net
/( )\ www.maenad.net/jnl
^`~'^
++ Sponsor me as I run my SECOND marathon for AIDS: ++
++ http://www.aidsmarathon.com/participant.asp?runner=DC-2844 ++
Attachment:
pgpvCL1ZxKzox.pgp
Description: PGP signature