Diederik de Haas - 22.12.22, 13:26:47 CET: > On Thursday, 22 December 2022 09:16:50 CET Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > > I find it way easier to have apt reduce the problem riskless > > > first. > > > It's a shorter list of actions to review. > > > > Good argument. My argument is that in the usual situation trying > > "apt > > full-upgrade" first will save me one command. With "apt upgrade" I > > often enough would have to use "apt full-upgrade" afterwards. > > IMO that indicates that the 'state' of your packages could be > improved. I *rarely* have to do a full-upgrade to get things fully > upgraded. And when not all packages get upgraded, that usually means > something 'special' is going on, like now with the Qt transition.
Well, I still thought about the "apt-get upgrade" scenario even though I use "apt upgrade" meanwhile. Often enough there are new packages to install. I did not really test how often I would have to use "apt full- upgrade" instead of "apt upgrade". It might be considerably less often due to apt installing new packages automatically. > On Wednesday, 21 December 2022 11:42:17 CET Diederik de Haas wrote: > > I think they above quoted script is absolutely horrific. > > I made that statement for 2 reasons: > 1) It tries do a dist-upgrade 'at all cost' (imo ofc) > 2) `dpkg --set-selection` completely messes up APT's 'database' wrt > manually and automatically installed packages ... which in turn > causes the need to full-/dist-upgrade. I made no statement at all about this script. So in case you were assuming that I somehow intended to justify it, I was not. Actually I did not even carefully read through it to see what it does. My statement was just about "upgrade" versus "full-upgrade". Best, -- Martin