Hello,
Paul Gevers, le jeu. 18 mars 2021 12:01:33 +0100, a ecrit:
> On 17-03-2021 19:40, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Paul Gevers, le mer. 17 mars 2021 19:38:16 +0100, a ecrit:
> >>> "apt upgrade --without-new-pkgs"
> >>
> >> Looking into history, I see we did this because of
> >> https://bugs.debia
Hi Samuel, all
On 17-03-2021 19:40, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Paul Gevers, le mer. 17 mars 2021 19:38:16 +0100, a ecrit:
>>> "apt upgrade --without-new-pkgs"
>>
>> Looking into history, I see we did this because of
>> https://bugs.debian.org/931637. I guess your suggestion is a better
>> alternativ
Paul Gevers, le mer. 17 mars 2021 19:38:16 +0100, a ecrit:
> > "apt upgrade --without-new-pkgs"
>
> Looking into history, I see we did this because of
> https://bugs.debian.org/931637. I guess your suggestion is a better
> alternative?
It would probably fill both the objective of upgrading withou
Hi Samuel
On 16-03-2021 22:17, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Paul Gevers, le mar. 16 mars 2021 22:08:51 +0100, a ecrit:
>> wrote:
>>> So we'd rather make release-notes document using apt instead of
>>> apt-get? I'm fine with that but we *ALSO* need to make sure that debian
>>> developers actually *tes
Paul Gevers, le mar. 16 mars 2021 22:08:51 +0100, a ecrit:
> wrote:
> > So we'd rather make release-notes document using apt instead of
> > apt-get? I'm fine with that but we *ALSO* need to make sure that debian
> > developers actually *test* that path, and not the apt-get path.
>
> Already the b
Control: tags -1 moreinfo
Hi Samuel,
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 16:27:35 +0100 Samuel Thibault
wrote:
> So we'd rather make release-notes document using apt instead of
> apt-get? I'm fine with that but we *ALSO* need to make sure that debian
> developers actually *test* that path, and not the apt-get p
Julian Andres Klode, le mar. 15 déc. 2020 16:15:23 +0100, a ecrit:
> > The problem is that these are not equivalent: apt upgrade will attempt
> > to install additional packages required by newer versions of existing
> > packages. That can lead to conflicts/breaks with other existing
> > packages, a
Control: reassign -1 release-notes
Control: retitle -1 release-notes: Update apt upgrade guidance
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 03:40:55PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Package: apt
> Version: 2.1.12
> Severity: normal
>
> Hello,
>
> The release notes tell people that they should basically use
>
>
I forgot to mention: yes, the addition of number in the package name
provides some indication, but that is too small for people to notice or
find it usable.
Samuel
Package: apt
Version: 2.1.12
Severity: normal
Hello,
The release notes tell people that they should basically use
apt-get upgrade
apt-get dist-upgrade
But people tend to rather use
apt upgrade
apt dist-upgrade
I guess essentially because apt provides progression indication.
The problem is th
10 matches
Mail list logo