Sven Joachim wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > Stable typically only needs safe-upgrade. But sometimes for point > > releases and for some security upgrades will need a dist-upgrade. > > Testing/Unstable by comparison typically always uses dist-upgrade. > > As an unstable user, I beg to disagree. With aptitude there are few > occasions where dist-upgrade is necessary, and it often does unwanted > things.
Since I use apt-get instead of aptitude I am likely missing a nuance of 'aptitude full-upgrade' (aka 'aptitude dist-upgrade') where it is different from 'apt-get dist-upgrade'. As a Sid user I usually 'apt-get upgrade' first (the safe upgrade) and then 'apt-get dist-upgrade' second to pick up dependency changes. Almost every day there will be packages with dependency changes and will need a dist-upgrade in order to keep current. > Unfortunately, apt-get does not have a safe-upgrade command. Here I beg to differ. 'apt-get upgrade' is the safe-upgrade mechanism. Packages cannot be added or removed and dependency chains cannot be broken. > > On Sid testing victim systems I routinely apply dist-upgrade daily > > without thinking. > > This should never be done on systems that you actually care about. > Always watch out for packages that the dist-upgrade is going to remove. Right. And I tried to be pretty clear about that in my message. Calling it "testing victim systems" should be pretty clear that those are testing victim systems. :-) Bob
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
