On Vi, 25 ian 19, 13:36:37, Kent West wrote: > > The basic difference between upgrade and dist-upgrade is that upgrade > doesn't remove existing or pull in not-installed stuff, whereas > dist-upgrade might. That is true for 'apt-get upgrade/dist-upgrade'. 'apt upgrade' will install packages. > The former is good when you need a box to undergo > minimal change; the latter is good when you just want things to "work". The > former is probably more suitable for servers, the latter for end-user > computers. > > I usually do "dist-upgrade" out of habit (as I spend most of my time on > end-user computers); but "upgrade" might be, at least theoretically, safer. On Debian stable 'apt full-upgrade' is almost never necessary[1] if you use 'apt upgrade' regularly, the major exception being upgrading to the next stable release (of course). Even on testing or unstable one could use 'apt upgrade' regularly and 'apt full-upgrade' only when necessary. [1] I seem to recall that in the cases where it is necessary 'apt' will mention "held back packages" and will even suggest to use 'full-upgrade'. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature