Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
Marc Wilson wrote: > I don't know... why do you bother to subscribe to a mailing list, when you > can't be bothered to *read* it before whining about someone else's > posting? > > Or did you not notice that I *did* define the terms? I noticed, and I also noticed the tone you used. I just don't see the point. -- John L. Fjellstad web: http://www.fjellstad.org/ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 04:31:25PM +0100, John L. Fjellstad wrote: > Marc Wilson wrote: > > > Is there a reason to not actually bother reading the man page for apt-get > > and learning the difference between the two targets? > > Why do you bother answer, when giving the answer makes you so uncomfortable? I don't know... why do you bother to subscribe to a mailing list, when you can't be bothered to *read* it before whining about someone else's posting? Or did you not notice that I *did* define the terms? Let me guess... you're one of those "special" people who should *never* be required to do anything heavy, like read for themselves. -- Marc Wilson | A triangle which has an angle of 135 degrees is [EMAIL PROTECTED] | called an obscene triangle. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 08:38:02AM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote: > -u enables APT::Get::Show-Upgraded to true which lists what packages are > going to be updated, but, IIRC, APT::Get::Show-Upgraded is true by > default. Yeah. It didn't used to be so, and many people change it so that it's not. Using the '-u' option is therefore the only way to get apt to show you what it's going to do. Using the '-s' option, on the other hand, *does* the operation, but doesn't actually do it. Think "simulate". ^_^ > Yes, I understand the difference between update and dist-upgrade as the > manual describes it and as it's be re-quoted here a few times. > > My question is if sources.list specifies "woody" instead of "stable" so > dist-upgrade will not someday upgrade to sarge" and since a "stable" > distribution should not change dependencies, IS there a difference > between using "upgrade" vs. "dist-upgrade" in that case? Yes, there is. For all the reasons stated earlier in this thread. It doesn't matter where the packages come from, it only matters what dependency solution you allow apt to come up with. The difference being that apt will potentially not upgrade some packages that have available upgrades, due to some other package having to change state. > I've always used dist-upgrade. IIRC, I have had problems in the past > just using "upgrade" with broken dependencies. I also (IIRC) have seen > posts here about not using "upgrade" in Sid. But reading the manual it > seems like "upgrade" should be fine, but more and more packages will be > left out of the upgrade due to changing dependencies that happen in Sid. Correct. The "upgrade" target does *not* "break" dependencies. It cannot, because it does not establish them and has no control over them. Packages establish dependencies. All apt can do is try to solve for a solution that fits the parameters (and abilities) you've given it. If that solution means that a package doesn't get upgraded without intervention, then that package just doesn't get upgraded. That's hardly the life-threatening event your average Sid cluebie tries to make it out to be. -- Marc Wilson | The public is an old woman. Let her maunder and [EMAIL PROTECTED] | mumble. -- Thomas Carlyle -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 10:01:37AM -0800, Vineet Kumar wrote: > * Bill Moseley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031205 08:38]: > > > > My question is if sources.list specifies "woody" instead of "stable" so > > dist-upgrade will not someday upgrade to sarge" and since a "stable" > > distribution should not change dependencies, IS there a difference > > between using "upgrade" vs. "dist-upgrade" in that case? > > > > I don't see that there is a difference. > > I think the answer is "probably not", but why not err on the side of > caution? I think it's kind of like the difference between using sudo or > fakeroot to build a deb. In theory, they should produce the same > outcome. But why would you issue a more powerful command when a simpler > one will suffice? Yes, you are right, the question was just academic. I wanted to make sure that I really understood the difference. This was the result of someone making the blanket statement to me that "dist-upgrade" was dangerous and the wrong thing to use without explaining why - even when I had explained that I use "stable" in my sources.list. It's important to me to make sure I understand things before responding to such statements. True, "update" is the correct operation. The (academic) question was not that, but rather if I had a flaw in my understanding of the differences -- or if there were differences not enumerated clearly in the documentation. You know, someone says you are wrong and it's helpful to make sure you are actually right before saying so... ;) Thanks, -- Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
* Bill Moseley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031205 08:38]: > > My question is if sources.list specifies "woody" instead of "stable" so > dist-upgrade will not someday upgrade to sarge" and since a "stable" > distribution should not change dependencies, IS there a difference > between using "upgrade" vs. "dist-upgrade" in that case? > > I don't see that there is a difference. I think the answer is "probably not", but why not err on the side of caution? I think it's kind of like the difference between using sudo or fakeroot to build a deb. In theory, they should produce the same outcome. But why would you issue a more powerful command when a simpler one will suffice? On a stable system, upgrade and dist-upgrade should act the same, but upgrade gives you one extra (albeit small) check to protect you from yourself. I guess the only thing up for debate is whether "albeit small" amounts to "negligible." I think in most cases it probably does, and this discussion is academic. But in certain, off-the-wall hypothetical scenarios (maybe the security team accidentally uploads a package that, for no good reason, Conflicts: with your version of libc6?) using upgrade instead of dist-upgrade will be safer. Ican't think of the off-the-wall hypothetical scenario in which dist-upgrade will be safer. So since they cost the same (or rather, upgrade costs 5 fewer keystrokes ;-) I'd use upgrade. But that's just me. Actually, that's a lie -- I'd use dselect. =) good times, Vineet -- http://www.doorstop.net/ -- http://www.anti-dmca.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 08:23:25PM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote: > 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? Odd. I though it was -s that shows you what to it's going to do without actually *doing* it. Man, I really do have a hard time reading the man pages after all! ;) -u enables APT::Get::Show-Upgraded to true which lists what packages are going to be updated, but, IIRC, APT::Get::Show-Upgraded is true by default. Back to my Original Question: Man, do I have bad luck. Seems like lately I post a simple question, but it's too simple and left open to interpretation, someone answers the wrong question and then the thread goes off in some other direction and I never get my answer. ;) I guess email is that way. If I had asked that question in person someone would have responded "can you rephrase your question?" So I'll rephrase it one more time: Yes, I understand the difference between update and dist-upgrade as the manual describes it and as it's be re-quoted here a few times. My question is if sources.list specifies "woody" instead of "stable" so dist-upgrade will not someday upgrade to sarge" and since a "stable" distribution should not change dependencies, IS there a difference between using "upgrade" vs. "dist-upgrade" in that case? I don't see that there is a difference. Now, regarding a system running Sid: I've always used dist-upgrade. IIRC, I have had problems in the past just using "upgrade" with broken dependencies. I also (IIRC) have seen posts here about not using "upgrade" in Sid. But reading the manual it seems like "upgrade" should be fine, but more and more packages will be left out of the upgrade due to changing dependencies that happen in Sid. Are there other potential problems that "upgrade" can cause on Sid that I'm not seeing? -- Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
Hello Thanasis! On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 09:38:18PM -0700, Thanasis Kinias wrote: Let me rephrase that: Given that it is (for a system tracking testing) at times necessary to do `dist-upgrade', is there any reason not to do it always? A quote from man apt-get |dist-upgrade, in addition to performing the function of upgrade, also |intelligently handles changing dependencies with new versions of |packages Thus I dare to conclude dist-upgrade is more complex than just a simple upgrade. ;) So if someone simply/only wants the functionality of 'upgrade' I'd personally recommend to use the less complex method. This applies for example to security updates in Woody, but also to many updates in Sarge. The alternative is to do `upgrade' routinely, and then redo it with `dist-upgrade' when it fails occasionally, which (unless there's a good reason to do it that way) seems like adding a needless extra step. This way you'll just use the complex way only when it's really necessary and stick to the simpler solution otherwise. True, it is an extra step for the admin, but using 'dist-upgrade' all the time means a lot of unnecessary extra steps all the other times for your box. It comes down to a matter of principles: I personally prefer to use the simple tool for a simple task. Certainly nobody will force you to do the same... :-P Cheers, Flo pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
Marc Wilson wrote: > Is there a reason to not actually bother reading the man page for apt-get > and learning the difference between the two targets? Why do you bother answer, when giving the answer makes you so uncomfortable? -- John L. Fjellstad web: http://www.fjellstad.org/ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
scripsit Marc Wilson: > 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. Sorry, brain-finger connection problem there. I do not doubt your expertise. > > 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? If I discover that it's going to remove something I need (for whatever reason), I will certainly investigate why, and use pins as necessary to prevent it. I'm not going to empower apt potentially to remove packages without checking with me first! > There should never be a reason to need 'dist-upgrade' if you're running > stable. That certainly makes sense. I should have mentioned, I suppose, that I run mostly testing -- so there is fairly often the need to do `dist-upgrade'. > 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? Let me rephrase that: Given that it is (for a system tracking testing) at times necessary to do `dist-upgrade', is there any reason not to do it always? The alternative is to do `upgrade' routinely, and then redo it with `dist-upgrade' when it fails occasionally, which (unless there's a good reason to do it that way) seems like adding a needless extra step. (Analogy: If a script will only ever be run by bash, why do `FOO=bar; export FOO' when `export FOO=bar' will do?) -- Pax vobiscum; pax cum omnibus. Thanasis Kinias tkinias at asu.edu Doctoral Student, Department of History Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 02:11:30AM +0100, Benedict Verheyen wrote: > ? So you automatically assume that when a person reads the man > page he understands what's being said? > That's not the best assumption IMHO. No. I assume that if a person reads the man page, and does not understand it, he will then ask questions about the part he does not understand. Until he has at least attempted the available information, his questions are more than likely going to be meaningless. Perhaps you don't see a difference there. I most certainly do, especially in these days where most people think they're above doing anything for themselves. -- Marc Wilson | A political man can have as his aim the realization [EMAIL PROTECTED] | of freedom, but he has no means to realize it other | than through violence. -- Jean Paul Sartre -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
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]
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
Marc Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 08:41:27PM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote: >> Is there a reason to use or not use dist-upgrade on Woody machines >> for security updates? > > Is there a reason to not actually bother reading the man page for > apt-get and learning the difference between the two targets? ? So you automatically assume that when a person reads the man page he understands what's being said? That's not the best assumption IMHO. Benedict -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
scripsit Bill Moseley:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 11:13:22PM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
[snip]
> > 'upgrade' - apt CAN'T change a package's installation state
> > 'dist-upgrade' - apt CAN change a package's installation state
[snip]
> Therefore, it's been my assumption that in that case dist-upgrade and
> upgrade act in the same way. Someone commented that dist-upgrade is
> the wrong thing to use for security updates, but I'm not clear if
> that's because of their different environment ("stable" vs. "woody in
> sources.list) or something else that is not clear to me from the docs.
I wonder the same thing as Marc. 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... So, if I'm doing -u to verify all changes, is
there any reason _not_ to do dist-upgrade for routine upgrades?
--
Pax vobiscum; pax cum omnibus.
Thanasis Kinias
tkinias at asu.edu
Doctoral Student, Department of History
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 11:13:22PM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 08:41:27PM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote:
> > Is there a reason to use or not use dist-upgrade on Woody machines for
> > security updates?
>
> Is there a reason to not actually bother reading the man page for apt-get
> and learning the difference between the two targets?
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Yes, I know the what the docs say.
> 'upgrade' - apt CAN'T change a package's installation state
> 'dist-upgrade' - apt CAN change a package's installation state
I use "woody" in my sources.list instead of saying "stable". Packages in
Stable are, well, stable. There are security updates that will replace
packages, of course, but dependencies should not change so there's no
installation state to change when doing security updates.
Therefore, it's been my assumption that in that case dist-upgrade and
upgrade act in the same way. Someone commented that dist-upgrade is the
wrong thing to use for security updates, but I'm not clear if that's
because of their different environment ("stable" vs. "woody in
sources.list) or something else that is not clear to me from the docs.
--
Bill Moseley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 08:41:27PM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote: > Is there a reason to use or not use dist-upgrade on Woody machines for > security updates? Is there a reason to not actually bother reading the man page for apt-get and learning the difference between the two targets? 'upgrade' - apt CAN'T change a package's installation state 'dist-upgrade' - apt CAN change a package's installation state Further details I leave to the man page. -- Marc Wilson | Clarke's Conclusion: Never let your sense of morals [EMAIL PROTECTED] | interfere with doing the right thing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
I always use dist-upgrade on my Woody machine when security announcements come out. I do this out of habit -- I think early on I had problems with just "upgrade". Is there a reason to use or not use dist-upgrade on Woody machines for security updates? -- Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dselect-upgrade vs dist-upgrade
Am Di, den 04.11.2003 schrieb Benedict Verheyen um 10:55: > Hi, > > when cloning a system via the dpkg --get-selection, dpkg --set-selection > method, it's advised to do a apt-get dselect-upgrade instead of > apt-get dist-upgrade. I do not understand why. >From the man page (man apt-get): dselect-upgrade dselect-upgrade is used in conjunction with the traditional Debian packaging front-end, dselect(8). dselect-upgrade follows the changes made by dselect(8) to the Status field of available packages, and performs the actions necessary to realize that state (for instance, the removal of old and the installation of new packages). dist-upgrade dist-upgrade, in addition to performing the function of upgrade, also intelligently handles changing dependencies with new ver- sions of packages; apt-get has a "smart" conflict resolution system, and it will attempt to upgrade the most important pack- ages at the expense of less important ones if necessary. The /etc/apt/sources.list file contains a list of locations from which to retrieve desired package files. See also apt_prefer- ences(5) for a mechanism for overriding the general settings for individual packages. In short: dist-upgrade looks which INSTALLED packages need to be upgraded, including new dependencies, while dselect-upgrade looks which packages you want to (un-)install. > Also, if you would use aptitude, what would be the correct way > of doing this? Don't use aptitude. I tried it out and found it in no way more user-friendly than dselect itself (and dselect is a real PITA to use). Just do it on the command line, and if you need a menu-based tool, use synaptic (it's GTK-based). joerg -- Gib GATES keine Chance! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dselect-upgrade vs dist-upgrade
Hi, when cloning a system via the dpkg --get-selection, dpkg --set-selection method, it's advised to do a apt-get dselect-upgrade instead of apt-get dist-upgrade. I do not understand why. Also, if you would use aptitude, what would be the correct way of doing this? Thanks, Benedict -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: "upgrade" vs "dist-upgrade"
on a side note, i've been wodering something. i have two boxes, one potato, one woody. from what i understand, the "dist-upgrade" will let some packages to be removed (converted) to other (replacement) packages while "upgrade" won't. on that thought, on the potato box... sources.list points to "stable" not "potato"... so, when woody becomes stable, (assuming the "stable" is a symlink on the server... would an apt-get update and upgrade automatically take you to woody?... or, once woody becomes stable, should i do a "dist-upgrade" at least once? thanks, jason On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 11:42:03AM +0100, Hans Ekbrand wrote: > On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 11:00:58PM +0100, Viktor Rosenfeld wrote: > > Bob Koss wrote: > > > > > Viktor> So, if you "upgrade" to woody, better use "dist-upgrade". > > > > > > If I'm already tracking woody, should I be routinely using "upgrade" > > > or "dist-upgrade" ? > > > > dist-upgrade. > > > > Now following the thread, there seems to be some discussion about the > > answer. Some people suggest using mainly "upgrade" and "dist-upgrade" > > only on occasions. Care to tell, why? > > After reading the thread, I have learnt some things. My first answer was > based on my current practice, and I still think "upgrade" is good enough. But > on the as you suggest, why not always use "dist-upgrade", what is the price? > > -- registered linux user #202942 http://counter.li.org/ http://www.theigloo.dhs.org
Re: "upgrade" vs "dist-upgrade"
On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 11:00:58PM +0100, Viktor Rosenfeld wrote: > Bob Koss wrote: > > > Viktor> So, if you "upgrade" to woody, better use "dist-upgrade". > > > > If I'm already tracking woody, should I be routinely using "upgrade" > > or "dist-upgrade" ? > > dist-upgrade. > > Now following the thread, there seems to be some discussion about the > answer. Some people suggest using mainly "upgrade" and "dist-upgrade" > only on occasions. Care to tell, why? After reading the thread, I have learnt some things. My first answer was based on my current practice, and I still think "upgrade" is good enough. But on the as you suggest, why not always use "dist-upgrade", what is the price? pgpZS5fRgDs9t.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: "upgrade" vs "dist-upgrade"
Bob Koss wrote: > Viktor> So, if you "upgrade" to woody, better use "dist-upgrade". > > If I'm already tracking woody, should I be routinely using "upgrade" > or "dist-upgrade" ? dist-upgrade. Now following the thread, there seems to be some discussion about the answer. Some people suggest using mainly "upgrade" and "dist-upgrade" only on occasions. Care to tell, why? Cheers, Viktor -- Viktor Rosenfeld WWW: http://www.informatik.hu-berlin.de/~rosenfel/ pgpDJMWto5dTX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: "upgrade" vs "dist-upgrade"
On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 04:38:59AM -0500, Bob Koss wrote: > If I'm already tracking woody, should I be routinely using "upgrade" > or "dist-upgrade" ? You can always use dist-upgrade or you can routinely use upgrade and only dist-upgrade when packages are listed as having been held back. Either way should work fine. -- When we reduce our own liberties to stop terrorism, the terrorists have already won. - reverius Innocence is no protection when governments go bad. - Mr. Slippery
Re: "upgrade" vs "dist-upgrade"
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 09:02:38PM -0500, Bob Underwood wrote: > IIRC, some have suggested a cycle of "upgrade" followed by "dist-upgrade" > when moving from one distribution to another. Is there an advantage to this > as regards split/packages, changed directory structures, etc.? I'm one of the people who makes such suggestions. I mainly do it that way because I feel it gives me a better idea of what's going on - first, I do the upgrade and get everything that hasn't changed a whole lot, then I do the dist-upgrade and get to look at where the structure has been shuffled around. -- When we reduce our own liberties to stop terrorism, the terrorists have already won. - reverius Innocence is no protection when governments go bad. - Mr. Slippery
Re: "upgrade" vs "dist-upgrade"
On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 04:38:59AM -0500, Bob Koss wrote: > > "Viktor" == Viktor Rosenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Viktor> You are mostly correct. IIRC, if the package structure > Viktor> changes, e.g. some packages get split up and others are > Viktor> added, then "upgrade" won't handle that and only upgrade > Viktor> the packages you have installed. "dist-upgrade" handles > Viktor> this case more intelligently. > > Viktor> However, since the package structure in potato (stable) > Viktor> won't change, "dist-upgrade" and "upgrade" have the same > Viktor> effect. An "upgrade" on woody or sid might leave your > Viktor> system broken, though. > > Viktor> So, if you "upgrade" to woody, better use "dist-upgrade". > > If I'm already tracking woody, should I be routinely using "upgrade" > or "dist-upgrade" ? Use dist-upgrade at least occasionally. Package structures do still change from time to time in woody. Or just use dselect, where there's no such distinction: you just resolve dependency changes as they occur. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: "upgrade" vs "dist-upgrade"
On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 04:38:59AM -0500, Bob Koss wrote: > If I'm already tracking woody, should I be routinely using "upgrade" > or "dist-upgrade" ? > upgrade pgp5EIgftmrxC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: "upgrade" vs "dist-upgrade"
> "Viktor" == Viktor Rosenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Viktor> You are mostly correct. IIRC, if the package structure Viktor> changes, e.g. some packages get split up and others are Viktor> added, then "upgrade" won't handle that and only upgrade Viktor> the packages you have installed. "dist-upgrade" handles Viktor> this case more intelligently. Viktor> However, since the package structure in potato (stable) Viktor> won't change, "dist-upgrade" and "upgrade" have the same Viktor> effect. An "upgrade" on woody or sid might leave your Viktor> system broken, though. Viktor> So, if you "upgrade" to woody, better use "dist-upgrade". If I'm already tracking woody, should I be routinely using "upgrade" or "dist-upgrade" ? -- Robert Koss, Ph.D. | Training, Mentoring, Contract Development Senior Consultant | Object Oriented Design, C++, Java www.objectmentor.com | Extreme Programming
Re: "upgrade" vs "dist-upgrade"
On Wednesday 31 October 2001 17:57, Viktor Rosenfeld wrote: > Mike Fontenot wrote: > > Is my interpretation correct, or have I misunderstood > > the man page? (My main concern is that I don't want to > > accidentally upgrade to woody). > > You are mostly correct. IIRC, if the package structure changes, e.g. > some packages get split up and others are added, then "upgrade" won't > handle that and only upgrade the packages you have installed. > "dist-upgrade" handles this case more intelligently. > > However, since the package structure in potato (stable) won't change, > "dist-upgrade" and "upgrade" have the same effect. An "upgrade" on > woody or sid might leave your system broken, though. > > So, if you "upgrade" to woody, better use "dist-upgrade". :) > > Cheers, > Viktor IIRC, some have suggested a cycle of "upgrade" followed by "dist-upgrade" when moving from one distribution to another. Is there an advantage to this as regards split/packages, changed directory structures, etc.? bob Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; charset="us-ascii"; name="Attachment: 1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description:
Re: "upgrade" vs "dist-upgrade"
Mike Fontenot wrote: > Is my interpretation correct, or have I misunderstood > the man page? (My main concern is that I don't want to > accidentally upgrade to woody). You are mostly correct. IIRC, if the package structure changes, e.g. some packages get split up and others are added, then "upgrade" won't handle that and only upgrade the packages you have installed. "dist-upgrade" handles this case more intelligently. However, since the package structure in potato (stable) won't change, "dist-upgrade" and "upgrade" have the same effect. An "upgrade" on woody or sid might leave your system broken, though. So, if you "upgrade" to woody, better use "dist-upgrade". :) Cheers, Viktor -- Viktor Rosenfeld WWW: http://www.informatik.hu-berlin.de/~rosenfel/ pgp5gMah2dnWB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: "upgrade" vs "dist-upgrade"
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 02:47:21PM -0700, Mike Fontenot wrote: > Is my interpretation correct, or have I misunderstood > the man page? (My main concern is that I don't want to > accidentally upgrade to woody). You are correct. -- When we reduce our own liberties to stop terrorism, the terrorists have already won. - reverius Innocence is no protection when governments go bad. - Mr. Slippery
"upgrade" vs "dist-upgrade"
The names of the apt commands "upgrade" and "dist-upgrade" sound like they differ according to whether or not the updating is within the current distribution (e.g., potato), or from one distribution to another (e.g., potato to woody). I've seen postings in which this view was stated, and not challanged in subsequent postings. But my reading of the man page gives me a different impression. It sounds to me like the question of whether it is an updating within a distribution, or to a new distribution, is determined by what's in the sources.list file. I.e., if your current distribution is potato, and if you only list "stable" in your sources.list (and specifying a web address, not a cd), then you will just get the latest of potato, regardless of whether the command is "upgrade" or "dist-upgrade". The only difference in those two cases would be that "dist-upgrade" does more checking of dependences. Is my interpretation correct, or have I misunderstood the man page? (My main concern is that I don't want to accidentally upgrade to woody). Mike Fontenot [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
Ole Sebastian Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >What are the differences between apt-get upgrade and apt-get >dist-upgrade? Look in the apt-get(8) man page: upgrade upgrade is used to install the newest versions of all packages currently installed on the system from the sources enumerated in /etc/apt/sources.list. Packages currently installed with new versions available are retrieved and upgraded; under no cir cumstances are currently installed packages removed, or packages not already installed retrieved and installed. New versions of currently installed packages that cannot be upgraded without changing the install status of another package will be left at their current version. An update must be performed first so that apt-get knows that new ver sions of packages are available. [...] dist-upgrade dist-upgrade, in addition to performing the func tion of upgrade, also intelligently handles chang ing dependencies with new versions of packages; apt-get has a "smart" conflict resolution system, and it will attempt to upgrade the most important packages at the expense of less important ones if necessary. The /etc/apt/sources.list file contains a list of locations from which to retrieve desired package files. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
apt-get upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
What are the differences between apt-get upgrade and apt-get dist-upgrade? I wonder which to use. Currently I use testing and upgrade every day or so. Would there have been any differences if I used another dist (ie. woody or potato)? Thank you. -- Ole Sebastian Stein ``It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.'' - Life, the universe and everything (Chapter 24), D. Adams
Re: Apt-get upgrade vs dist-upgrade?
On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 10:04:25PM -0500, Marc Sherman wrote: > What's the difference between apt-get upgrade and > apt-get dist-upgrade? Just doing "upgrade" will not upgrade any packages that: a) Require installing new packages that are not currently installed b) Require removing packages that are currently installed (conflicts) Doing a dist-upgrade assumes that you are doing a major thing, and it will force upgrading to all of the latest packages that you have installed, even if that means installing new ones to meet dependencies, or removing obsolete ones that the newer packages conflict with. Apt-get will specify which packages are NEW, and which are being REMOVED. So you wont be entering into anything without knowing that is going on. -- ---===-=-==-=---==-=-- / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Re: Apt-get upgrade vs dist-upgrade?
apt-get upgrade will attempt to upgrade the packages which you currently have installed on your system. If any of those upgrades require that additional packages be removed or installed then the said package(s) will be held back. apt-get dist-upgrade will attempt to upgrade all packages, installing or removing packages as needed. Sean Marc Sherman wrote: > > What's the difference between apt-get upgrade and > apt-get dist-upgrade?
Apt-get upgrade vs dist-upgrade?
What's the difference between apt-get upgrade and apt-get dist-upgrade? Thanks, - Marc
apt-get: upgrade vs dist-upgrade
I can't remember where I read it, but I read that, in reference to potato, to keep an installation up-to-date one should run apt-get with the upgrade option and with the dist-upgrade option. Is this true? I ran apt-get dist-upgrade when I moved from slink to potato, but since, I've just used the upgrade option to apt-get. Am I doing it wrong? Oh, I remember now, it was on the svlug list. I'l check to see if I can find the original post. TIA for any clarification. -- ) Mark Wagnon ) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) ( Chula Vista, CA ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] (
