Organisation: Furball Inc.
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 06:03:32AM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 05:06:47PM +1000, CaT wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > Erm?
>
> apt-get upgrade refuses to ever remove a package, even if its
> obsolete, conflicted and replaced by something else. this gets to be
I saw what you meant today (tried using dist-upgrade and when I noticed
it wanted to remove stuff or add extra stuff I tried upgrade and didn't
see it wanting to do that).
> a impossible situation with large numbers of packages upgraded.
> granted you are unlikely to notice on a small update such as security
> or rX -> rY but using the crippled apt-get upgrade buys you nothing
> except habit which will bite you later when upgrading something more.
*nod*
> > 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
Aye. I guess the difference is that upgrade upgrades the packages
you have, leaving anything else alone while dist-upgrade does an
upgrade of the whole dist (tree vs forest type of scenario).
> magically download sid or woody, nor will it reinstall everything in
> potato.
Well, duh. ;)
--
CaT ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) *** Jenna has joined the channel.
<cat> speaking of mental giants..
<Jenna> me, a giant, bullshit
<Jenna> And i'm not mental
- An IRC session, 20/12/2000
