> > *I'm not attacking you, William, I'm asking for clarification. It doesn't > make any sense to me that apt-get update wouldn't write its results to > disk.* > > * You don't need to apt-get update all the time, if it writes its results > to disk. But if it doesn't, and you forget to next time you apt-get > install, you run the risk of downgrading something you have installed (or > otherwise corrupting it), don't you?* >
Not attacking you either Rick, but here is the point. The official images come with this enabled. So whether you, I, or anyone else cares, it's already in there. The apt sources cache is either completely in RAM, with a default cache set at build time, or it is a minimal gzipped archive. Technically, no you do not *have* to run apt-get update _every_single_time_ you go to use APT, but generally it is a good idea. All it takes is an update in one repo or another( depending ), and apt-get install, apt-get upgrade, etc will fail, barfing out some message similar to E: could not locate x.y.z. Either way, the blog was meant for people who are new to Beaglebone, or Linux development in general. If you're good with Debian(Linux), you probably do not need my guides. Passed that, many people are worried about writing to flash too much, and I'm one of them. I've been using an A5A for gaining on 3 years now, with no flash problems, and that includes the Sony class 10 SDHC card that we bought for it back then. As it is, I make enough mistakes of writing to flash, accidentally, to worry about all the compiling, apt-get installing, etc. This is also why one of my first blog posts was on how to setup NFS shares, and NFS root for the Beaglebone. Not to mention I compile often, and a lot. Granted, compiling over an NFS share *is* slower, but I can live with that. But it's also why I have a cross system for the larger projects, or is why I wrote another blog on how to setup a USB rootfs . . . I was also a bit "quick" this morning . . . which is how I normally am for the first few hours after waking up. Still, if I write something in my blog posts, and you do not get it. Don't worry so much about it. It was probably not meant for you, or other advanced users. It was meant to keep people, who are new out of "trouble", with minimal explanation required from me. On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Robert Nelson <robertcnel...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Rick Mann <rm...@latencyzero.com> wrote: > > I'm not attacking you, William, I'm asking for clarification. It doesn't > make any sense to me that apt-get update wouldn't write its results to disk. > > > > You don't need to apt-get update all the time, if it writes its results > to disk. But if it doesn't, and you forget to next time you apt-get > install, you run the risk of downgrading something you have installed (or > otherwise corrupting it), don't you? > > It's really hard to down-grade in debian, and any cache corruption > should stop dpkg from installing a *.deb package.. > > Regards, > > -- > Robert Nelson > https://rcn-ee.com/ > > -- > For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "BeagleBoard" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BeagleBoard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to beagleboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
