On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 03:34:05PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > >> > AFAIK, "apt full-upgrade" is for stable to the next stable, > >> > not for testing and unstable (one typically resolves conflicts > >> > interactively). > >> > >> Interesting. I don't use `apt` but "full-upgrade" is what I've been > >> using with testing for the last 20 years, first with `apt-get` then with > >> `aptitude`. > > > > It's just a tad riskier -- you allow apt to change versions and > > potentially remove packages. If you keep a small cross section > > you won't get hit often :) > > I always review the set of removed packages, indeed (tho when that set > is large, it's easy to miss something). Note that this same problem > occurs for users of `stable` when moving from one release to the > next, tho, with the caveat that in this case the set is always large (arguably > too large to review). Yes, with stable you get the pain only once, in a big hunk, every couple o'years, with testing it's piecemeal :-) To be honest though, with stable some of those nits get ironed out (in testing) before they reach you, and... you got release notes. But yes, I've been running on testing myself in the past and doing full-upgrade (I called it dist-upgrade back then), and things sailed mostly smoothly. It's just that doing upgrade on stable (full or not) is so rock solid that we get spoiled. Cheers -- t
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature