Re: dist-upgrade problem
Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 11:21:39AM +0200, Jonathan Kaye
> <jdkaye10@yahoo.es> was heard to say:
>> Zach wrote:
>> I think you can mark them as "hold" as in aptitude hold texlive.
>> I still don't know why you want to do a dist-upgrade rather than a simple
>> upgrade as a matter of routine. Have you tried doing just aptitude
>> upgrade and see if it still wants to install texlive? I would use
>> dist-upgrade if I were going from Etch to Lenny for example. dist-upgrade
>> is more agressive than upgrade about what it chooses to upgrade. Try
>> reading the manual for a better description than mine.
>
> "upgrade" is extremely conservative and will bail if it encounters
> even something as trivial as a new dependency that needs to be
> installed. "dist-upgrade" is a much better alternative if you're
> tracking unstable or testing; with "upgrade", many of your packages
> will simply refuse to upgrade.
>
> Daniel
Hi Daniel,
I guess we'll agree to disagree on this. I've been tracking testing since
the Sarge days using aptitude or wajig as an apt front end. Just today I
wanted to upgrade amarok to 1.4.6 and as a result installed newer versions
of a couple of other packages. That certainly unblocked things because when
I did my normal upgrade I had 193 upgrades to make. I take this to be
normal. If I'm in a rush for a newer version (as today) I can alt-pin it or
download it as a binary (what I do for Openoffice, FF and TB) from its
homepage or compile it myself (what I do for K3b and amule).
Anyway this is the beauty of opensource, we do what pleases us.
Cheers,
Jonathan
--
Registerd Linux user #445917 at http://counter.li.org/
Reply to: