On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 02:57:16PM -0700, Thanasis Kinias wrote: > I wonder the same thing as Marc.
You're not wondering the same thing as me... I know perfectly well what the two targets do. It's Bill Moseley who's doing the wondering. > I always do dist-upgrade also. Since I also always use -u, I'm not > worried about its removing or installing things I don't want... Uh, no, all that does is show you what it's going to do without actually *doing* it. It has nothing to do with what you're *allowing* it to do. Assuming it shows you that it intends to remove a package, or install a new one... what are you going to do then? Are you going to still turn it loose, or are you going to investigate why? There should never be a reason to need 'dist-upgrade' if you're running stable. > So, if I'm doing -u to verify all changes, is there any reason _not_ to > do dist-upgrade for routine upgrades? Certainly. See above. If you don't want to give apt the power to change the installation state of a package, you don't use 'dist-upgrade'. Why would you give it that power, if it weren't necessary? -- Marc Wilson | The scene is dull. Tell him to put more life into [EMAIL PROTECTED] | his dying. -Samuel Goldwyn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
