Re: New APT version
On Tue, May 05, 1998 at 10:42:52PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 May 1998, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > This version of apt is probably the most effective way to upgrade from
> > > bo/rex. It has been tested in several bo upgrades and has undergone
> > > simulated upgrades for 18 different configurations, including a few rex
> > > systems.
> >
> > This makes me wonder if we should think about dropping autoup as the
> > preferred way to upgrade to hamm, and switch to apt. On the one hand, autoup
> > has been tested pretty thouroghly and we shouldn't risk postponing debian
> > 2.0 to work out bugs in apt. On the other hand, I've never seen autoup
> > as anything but a hack. Apt also lets people accomplish the entire bo ->
> > hamm upgrade from inside dselect, which is much cleaner.
>
> Well, not to belittle auto-up, but has it been kept up with the new
> bo->hamm elements? Dpkg now depends on libstdc++ for instance. As far as
> bugs in apt go, I have been running a beta for the past month on alot of
> different machines and system and people. I have monitored about 5 bo
> upgrades that apt didn't have any problem with (there were package bugs
> though)
I, too, happen to think that apt should be the preferred way to upgrade from
bo to hamm. The debian-testing effort isn't at full speed yet, right ?
One question though:
If there is a broken package, apt stops processing instead of rethinking its
strategy. What should the users do if they have a broken package ? Remove the
offending package with dpkg by hand ?
Just a nitpick for some broken installations ;-)
Greetings,
Christian
--
Christian Meder, email: meder@isr.uni-stuttgart.de
What's the railroad to me ?
I never go to see
Where it ends.
It fills a few hollows,
And makes banks for the swallows,
It sets the sand a-blowing,
And the blackberries a-growing.
(Henry David Thoreau)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to deity-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: