> On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 10:47:09PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > > no. dist-upgrade is much smarter about dependencies then upgrade is. > > i always use dist-upgrade rather then upgrade for that reason. > > > for example if you track unstable or testing you must never use > apt-get upgrade as it simply doesn't work. even though you are > technically not upgrading your `dist' every day, apt-get upgrade is > still broken quite often in this circumstance. i choose to simply not > ever bother with apt-get upgrade in favor of dist-upgrade.
I track unstable/sid and also routinely do "apt-get upgrade" with no apparent problems. Every once in a while, I'll answer 'no' to doing the upgrade and then do a "apt-get -u dist-upgrade" and will have the exact same packages to be updated. Other times it will want to update different ones. I must admit that I'm confused... is there much reason to do "upgrade" vs "dist-upgrade". I get the idea I should start using the latter just about all the time. > > I see 16 with apt-get upgrade. > > all depends on what you have installed, dist-upgrade and upgrade will > be the same in this case. using dist-upgrade is not going to > magically download sid or woody, nor will it reinstall everything in > potato. So that's why "dist-upgrade" sometimes want to add new packages that I either don't want or don't currently have installed, right ?? I suppose I could make a note of these packages and then remove them right after it's finished. Regards Hall
