Re: upgrade to Wheezy fails with aptitude
On Sunday 01 April 2012 19:45:02 Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Lisi wrote:
> > Tenses are often very difficult for non-native speakers of English to
> > understand.
> It's funny. Do you really think that the the meaning of the past tense
> is different in other languages!?
Yes, particularly in French. The passé simple and the English preterite
appear the same, but in fact are quite different. The passé composé appears
the same as teh English perfect tense, but in fact is quite different.I could
give you numerous other examples.
> IMO, your interpretation of the past tense is wrong: The fact that
> a statement was written in the past never implied, in any language, that
> it is no more valid. Example:
> "Pasteur recommended to wash hands frequently"
I give you: "Pasteur used to recommend that people should wash their hands
frequently" is a use of the past tense that clearly says that that statement
is no longer true. In your words, it clearly implies that it is no longer
valid. Etc. You are quite wrong in the case you are arguing. Your English
is extremely good for a Frenchman, but one needs the rider. English tenses
and French tenses differ both in usage and in meaning, and there are more of
them in English. It is clear that you have not fully grasped the correct
usage in English.
> If the old statement is no more valid, that needs to be specified
> explicitly, preferably in the same sentence or the next one,
No, it doesn't.
There is no point in carrying on with this. You would obviously be prepared
to insist that the world is flat rather than admit that you might have made a
> as in the following (half-imaginary) example:
> : "Pasteur recommended to boil water before drinking it, but this is no
> : more
> needed in most modern countries"
> So, to come back to Debian upgrade, in the following sentence
> The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of aptitude
> for the upgrade.
> the past tense is obviously used because this recommendation was written
> in the past, but it is nowhere writen that it is no more valid, except for
> upgrades from Debian 5.0 to Debian 6.0. For example, reading that,
> I would still use aptitude to upgrade from Debian 4.0 to Debian 5.0
> If you want an other proof that I am right, look at section 4.2
> Please follow the instructions in the Release Notes for Debian
> GNU/Linux 5.0 to upgrade to 5.0 first.
> Please note that "follow" is not at the past tense!
> On the contrary, reading:
> apt-get is the preferred program for package management from
> console to perform system installation and major system upgrades
> I would use apt-get to upgrade to 5.0
> Please note the plural, and that there is not a single restriction
> for the concerned realeases
> So, I persist to say that the 2 sentences are contradictory. I'll
> propose a slight modification to remove this contradiction:
> 1/ in 4.4.6, replace
> The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of
> aptitude for the upgrade. This tool is not recommended for upgrades
> from lenny to squeeze.
> The recommended tool for system upgrade from Lenny to Squeeze
> is apt-get. For upgrades to previous releases, it is aptitude
> 2/ in the Debian faq, replace
> Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages as default and is
> the preferred program for package management from console to perform
> system installation and major system upgrades for its robustness.
> Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages as default and
> is, for its robustness, the preferred program for package management from
> console to perform system installation and major system upgrades to
> releases posterior to Lenny.
> Pierre Frenkiel