On Sunday 03 July 2005 12:14, R. Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> I feel like answering RTFM again, but you've been reasonable and polite.
> Thank you for your courtesy.
>
> 'apt-get upgrade' is restricted (and therefore safer) in that:
>
> under no circumsta
On Sunday 03 July 2005 17:09, R. Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> That may be true for apt-get (the apt-get man page entries for upgrade
> and dist-upgrade mention nothing about installation state), but it
> doesn't seem to be true for aptitude [...]
It is true.
Excuse me? That's a direct cut-and-paste from the apt-get man page.
It is, but it only half-answers the question. The original discussion
involved the difference between upgrade and dist-upgrade. The quote I cited
implied that upgrade is safer than dist-upgrade because upgrade doesn't
re
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 02:14:19PM -0400, R. Clayton wrote:
> 'apt-get upgrade' is restricted (and therefore safer) in that:
>
> under no circumstances are currently installed packages removed,
>
> Neither the apt-get nor the aptitude man page make that distinction (which is
> not to say i
4 matches
Mail list logo
