On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:55:33 +0100 Thomas Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 12:52:22PM -0500, Jacob S. wrote: > > > > > apt-get upgrade > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > This step really isn't necessary, though. Everything in it and more > > gets covered in the next one. > > That's where you're wrong. Although a dist-upgrade does imply an > 'upgrade', it can still turn round and bite you on the arse. Hence, > the intermediary step is *always* advisable. Actually, I've tried it before. Doing an upgrade before a dist-upgrade when I'm jumping between major releases like that has always either upgraded nothing or caused problems for me. And I wasn't even using any backports or apt-pinning. Instead I use upgrade in conjunction with a few <packag_name> install commands to fix the packages that were held back, didn't upgrade properly, or whatever else _after_ the dist-upgrade is complete. Jacob -- GnuPG Key: 1024D/16377135 Random .signature #52: The relative speed of a computer, regardless of CPU architecture, is inversely proportional to the number of Microsoft products installed.
pgpCKv65lgpHB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
