On Tuesday 05 July 2005 16:38, Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> I think Jules' message above is pretty clear and straightforward. I > suppose some of the ramifications of this choice might not be > immediately clear though. His comments are, I believe, correct but notable incomplete and somewhat rambling. > _Usually_ "dist-upgrade" is what you want, especially in unstable > where lots of dependency info, etc. is changing around. The problem > with dist-upgrade in unstable (or testing) is that SOMETIMES, if the > packages are laid out just right (or wrong), "dist-upgrade" will decide > that in order to bring your system as up-to-date as possible is has to > remove large swaths of packages, because of versioning conflicts. IIRC, with some KDE or GNOME update, I guessed that they only way to perform the update was to allow aptitude to remove several tens of megabytes of packages and then re-install the updated versions. With one or the other, the update was not immediately complete and I ran aptitude from a text console waiting for the update to complete. > In general, I do it like this (I use either testing or unstable most of > the time): > > * Run "dist-upgrade". Check to make sure the resulting changes look > OK. If so, accept them. > > * If not, then I do one of: > > (a) "install" a particular package or set of packages that I > particularly want/need, OR > > (b) Try "upgrade" and see if it does a better job, OR > > (c) Give up and wait a few days for the repository to become > consistent. This is advice worth quoting. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
