On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 08:17:49PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Wednesday 18 May 2005 02:47, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Is there a difference in packages removed if you run "aptitude install > > aptitude" instead of "aptitude install aptitude dpkg"? I don't see any > > reason why dpkg needs to be upgraded first, unlike aptitude.
> No, makes no real difference. I still need perl to keep my system at least > somewhat alive. Yes, of course. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. > > If perl needs to be added to the list, I say to just add it. People > > who have Prio: standard packages missing from their systems probably > > won't want to follow our advise to use aptitude, either. > perl was not missing on my system. It just needed to be upgraded along > with aptitude because of dependencies (no idea which). That upgrade had > to be forced by adding it in the install command. > Otherwise perl would be removed, taking half my system with it. > I think we will be getting two kinds of upgrade: > - servers or light desktops that can get by with just upgrading aptitude > - desktops with kde, gnome (from unofficial backports or not) that will > have to look at the results of 'aptitude install aptitude' and decide if > anything else is needed; perl probably is a prime candidate > I going to try to rewrite/reorganize chapter 4 of the release notes > somewhat on Saturday to see if I can make the upgrade instructions a bit > more organic. So you don't think it's reasonable to just list perl as a package to aptitude install prior to dist-upgrading? I really can't imagine why someone who has stripped perl off of their system would care about the instructions in the release notes at all :) -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
