On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:49:12 +0100, Lisi wrote in message
<201204111549.12321.lisi.re...@gmail.com>:
> On Wednesday 04 April 2012 17:07:16 Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 11:28:59 +0100, Lisi wrote in message
> >
> > <201204041128.59935.lisi.re...@gmail.com>:
> > > On Wednesday 04 Apri
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012, Nicolas Bercher wrote:
I get 2220 packages, (and 995 with "~i~M")
No, the above command doesn't show automatically installed packages.
sorry, but the link you gave:
http://algebraicthunk.net/~dburrows/projects/aptitude/doc/en/ch02s03s05.html
actually correspo
On Wednesday 04 April 2012 17:07:16 Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 11:28:59 +0100, Lisi wrote in message
>
> <201204041128.59935.lisi.re...@gmail.com>:
> > On Wednesday 04 April 2012 10:01:47 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > > Note that since Lenny, apt-get *installs* recommended packages by
>
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 11:28:59 +0100, Lisi wrote in message
<201204041128.59935.lisi.re...@gmail.com>:
> On Wednesday 04 April 2012 10:01:47 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > Note that since Lenny, apt-get *installs* recommended packages by
> > default.
>
> ...since Lenny, apt-get *has installed*.
Le 09/04/2012 11:12, Pierre Frenkiel a écrit :
aptitude search ~i\!~M -F "%p"
This shows manually and automatically installed packages.
I get 2220 packages, (and 995 with "~i~M")
No, the above command doesn't show automatically installed packages.
Sorry, retry it without -F "%p" to
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012, Nicolas Bercher wrote:
Did you upgrade aptitude first?
Not after modifying the sources.list,
I don't see that in the recommendations for upgrade, but nevertheless
that seems a good thing to do (and for apt-get also)
This might solve many problems.
May-be, but it's
On 21/03/2012 11:01, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
hi,
I wanted to upgrade from Squeeze to Wheezy, and as I saw in several places
that aptitude should be preferred to apt-get, I first tried with it.
I started with only 1 line in sources.list:
deb http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-
In linux.debian.user, Charles Kroeger wrote:
>
> I don't have aptitude, never used it. Why would one need apt-get and aptitude
> together?
>
As a debian user since 2003 I was so accustomed to using apt-get that I just
stuck with it until squeeze, at which point curiosity compelled me to fool
wi
> I never use it any other way. I tend to forget that it has an ncurses
> mode. Which would explain why I thought that both apt and aptitude can be
> used for day to day operations.
I don't have aptitude, never used it. Why would one need apt-get and aptitude
together?
--
CK
--
To UNSUBSCRI
On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 08:28:33PM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> funny. Now if it was a picture of two hippos in a river... that would
> make perfect sense. :-)
What about the poor hippo who kept swimming in circles after they kicked
him off the hippo campus?
--
"Religion is excellent stuff for
On Saturday 07 April 2012 11:28:33 Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 07/04/12 19:54, Lisi wrote:
> > On Saturday 07 April 2012 00:39:58 Scott Ferguson wrote:
> >>> That is about spelling, not grammar. Since requires the perfect tense.
> >>> It is quite simply wrong in English to say "since installs".
On 07/04/12 19:54, Lisi wrote:
> On Saturday 07 April 2012 00:39:58 Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>> That is about spelling, not grammar. Since requires the perfect tense.
>>> It is quite simply wrong in English to say "since installs". Leave
>>> out the words "since Lenny", and "installs" becomes c
On Saturday 07 April 2012 00:39:58 Scott Ferguson wrote:
> > That is about spelling, not grammar. Since requires the perfect tense.
> > It is quite simply wrong in English to say "since installs". Leave
> > out the words "since Lenny", and "installs" becomes correct, but loses
> > some of the
On Friday 06 April 2012 23:43:37 Chris Bannister wrote:
> > > > One of the keys to "plain English" is brevity. ;-)
> > >
> > > http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=4904#comment-303296
> >
> > That is about spelling, not grammar. Since requires the perfect tense.
> > It is
>
> It was supposed to be a
On Sat, 7 Apr 2012, Chris Bannister wrote:
AIUI, no one knows *yet* whether aptitude or apt-get will be preferred
for Wheezy until the usual testing takes place near the time of actual
release.
look at this (from the Debian Project News, 23 Jan 2012)
http://www.perrier.eu.org/weblog/2012/
On 07/04/12 05:54, Lisi wrote:
> On Friday 06 April 2012 20:34:28 Chris Bannister wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 11:38:29AM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>> On 04/04/12 07:46, Lisi wrote:
On Tuesday 03 April 2012 22:35:00 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> Note that apt-get *installs* recommended
On 07/04/12 05:34, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=4904#comment-303296
>
You shouldn't have eaten those mushrooms.
Kind regards
--
Iceweasel/Firefox/Chrome/Chromium/Iceape/IE extensions for finding
answers to questions about Debian:-
https://addons.mozilla.o
On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 08:54:47PM +0100, Lisi wrote:
> On Friday 06 April 2012 20:34:28 Chris Bannister wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 11:38:29AM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> > > On 04/04/12 07:46, Lisi wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 03 April 2012 22:35:00 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > > >> Note tha
On Friday 06 April 2012 21:38:44 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Vi, 06 apr 12, 20:54:47, Lisi wrote:
> > That is about spelling, not grammar. Since requires the perfect tense.
> > It is quite simply wrong in English to say "since installs". Leave
> > out the words "since Lenny", and "installs" be
On Vi, 06 apr 12, 20:54:47, Lisi wrote:
>
> That is about spelling, not grammar. Since requires the perfect tense. It is
> quite simply wrong in English to say "since installs". Leave out the
> words "since Lenny", and "installs" becomes correct, but loses some of the
> intended meaning.
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 12:35:00AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 04 apr 12, 02:01:41, Chris Bannister wrote:
> >
> > For a start it is possibly all just hot air unless it is discussed on
> > the debian-doc list and/or a patch submitted against the debian-faq
> > package. I know that you ar
On Friday 06 April 2012 20:34:28 Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 11:38:29AM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> > On 04/04/12 07:46, Lisi wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 03 April 2012 22:35:00 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > >> Note that apt-get *installs* recommended packages by default since
> > >
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 11:38:29AM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 04/04/12 07:46, Lisi wrote:
> > On Tuesday 03 April 2012 22:35:00 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >> Note that apt-get *installs* recommended packages by default since
> >> Lenny and starting with Squeeze is the preferred program to
Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2012 schrieb Lisi:
> On Wednesday 04 April 2012 18:58:07 Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 4. April 2012 schrieb Lisi:
> > > On Wednesday 04 April 2012 10:01:47 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > > > Note that since Lenny, apt-get *installs* recommended packages
> > > > by
On 05/04/12 18:45, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Jo, 05 apr 12, 09:05:53, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 05/04/12 04:24, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
>>>
>>> It would be nice if I could now whether I installed a packages manually
>>> via dpkg -i and m-a a-i, well which uses dpkg, it whether apt-get or
>>>
On Jo, 05 apr 12, 09:05:53, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 05/04/12 04:24, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> >
> > It would be nice if I could now whether I installed a packages manually
> > via dpkg -i and m-a a-i, well which uses dpkg, it whether apt-get or
> > aptitude installed it, i.e. whether I inst
On 05/04/12 04:24, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 4. April 2012 schrieb Scott Ferguson:
>>> Hope this explains,
>>
>
> It would be nice if I could now whether I installed a packages manually
> via dpkg -i and m-a a-i, well which uses dpkg, it whether apt-get or
> aptitude installed
On Wednesday 04 April 2012 19:00:44 Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 4. April 2012 schrieb Lisi:
> > On Wednesday 04 April 2012 12:14:55 Scott Ferguson wrote:
> > > ... since Lenny, apt-get will continue to install recommended
> > > packages by default. So I believe "has" is redundant, eve
On Wednesday 04 April 2012 18:58:07 Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 4. April 2012 schrieb Lisi:
> > On Wednesday 04 April 2012 10:01:47 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > > Note that since Lenny, apt-get *installs* recommended packages by
> > >
> > > default.
> >
> > ...since Lenny, apt-get *h
Am Mittwoch, 4. April 2012 schrieb Scott Ferguson:
> > Hope this explains,
>
> Thanks.
> Sort of explains things to me - I'm still lost as to why I'd want to
> remove packages for which no repository is currently listed in
> /etc/apt/sources.list or /etc/apt/sources.list.d/*.list
> Packages that c
Am Montag, 2. April 2012 schrieb Lisi:
> On Monday 02 April 2012 22:15:08 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > As I understand it the latest recommendation is to use apt-get from
> > command line and aptitude interactively.
>
> Ah! Do you not use aptitude at the command line? Is that what you are
> saying?
Am Montag, 2. April 2012 schrieb Andrei POPESCU:
> On Lu, 02 apr 12, 17:32:44, Lisi wrote:
> > On Monday 02 April 2012 10:48:24 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > > I'd suggest this instead:
> > >
> > > Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages by default
> > > and is, for its robustness, the
Am Mittwoch, 4. April 2012 schrieb Lisi:
> On Wednesday 04 April 2012 12:14:55 Scott Ferguson wrote:
> > ... since Lenny, apt-get will continue to install recommended
> > packages by default. So I believe "has" is redundant, even though
> > it's correct.
>
> What is wrong with :
>
> Apt-get will
Am Mittwoch, 4. April 2012 schrieb Lisi:
> On Wednesday 04 April 2012 10:01:47 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > Note that since Lenny, apt-get *installs* recommended packages by
> >
> > default.
>
> ...since Lenny, apt-get *has installed*..
Why? It still does.
--
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald
On Wednesday 04 April 2012 12:14:55 Scott Ferguson wrote:
> ... since Lenny, apt-get will continue to install recommended packages
> by default. So I believe "has" is redundant, even though it's correct.
What is wrong with :
Apt-get will continue to install recommended packages by default.
Wh
On 04/04/12 20:28, Lisi wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 April 2012 10:01:47 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>> Note that since Lenny, apt-get *installs* recommended packages by
>> default.
>
> ...since Lenny, apt-get *has installed*..
>
> ;-)
> Lisi
>
>
Even trickier - since Lenny developers have been
On 04/04/12 19:01, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 04 apr 12, 11:38:29, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> My suggestions:-
>>
>> 1. rephrased for clarity, but hardly succin*c*t.
>> Note that since Lenny, apt-get installs recommended[*1] packages by default.
>> Beginning with the release of Squeeze[*2], apt i
On Wednesday 04 April 2012 10:01:47 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> Note that since Lenny, apt-get *installs* recommended packages by
> default.
...since Lenny, apt-get *has installed*..
;-)
Lisi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe".
On Wednesday 04 April 2012 02:38:29 Scott Ferguson wrote:
> 2. How I'd write it:-
> Apt is the recommended program to perform system installation and major
> system upgrades.[*3]
>
> 3. To avoid confusion people should read the fine Debian documentation
> in their native language.
:-) +1
Lisi
On Mi, 04 apr 12, 11:38:29, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> My suggestions:-
>
> 1. rephrased for clarity, but hardly succint.
> Note that since Lenny, apt-get installs recommended[*1] packages by default.
> Beginning with the release of Squeeze[*2], apt is the recommended
> program to perform system inst
On Mi, 04 apr 12, 10:58:52, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> Sort of explains things to me - I'm still lost as to why I'd want to
> remove packages for which no repository is currently listed in
> /etc/apt/sources.list or /etc/apt/sources.list.d/*.list
> Packages that custom packages, packages for which the
On 04/04/12 07:46, Lisi wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 April 2012 22:35:00 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>> Note that apt-get *installs* recommended packages by default since
>> Lenny and starting with Squeeze is the preferred program to perform
>> system installation and major system upgrades.
>
> Note
On 04/04/12 07:25, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Ma, 03 apr 12, 10:40:45, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 03/04/12 08:16, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, I only use aptitude from command line for things such as
>>>
>>> aptitude purge ~o
>>>
>>> which are impossible to achieve with apt-get alone and
On Tuesday 03 April 2012 22:35:00 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> Note that apt-get *installs* recommended packages by default since
> Lenny and starting with Squeeze is the preferred program to perform
> system installation and major system upgrades.
Note that apt-get *has installed* recommended
On Mi, 04 apr 12, 02:01:41, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> For a start it is possibly all just hot air unless it is discussed on
> the debian-doc list and/or a patch submitted against the debian-faq
> package. I know that you are involved in translations and hence have
> some influence/knowledge so I
On Ma, 03 apr 12, 10:40:45, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 03/04/12 08:16, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I only use aptitude from command line for things such as
> >
> > aptitude purge ~o
> >
> > which are impossible to achieve with apt-get alone and not easy even if
> > you combine it wit
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 12:48:24PM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> I'd suggest this instead:
>
> Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages by default and
> is, for its robustness, the preferred program for package management
> from console, to perform system installation, an
On 03/04/12 08:16, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Lu, 02 apr 12, 22:28:18, Lisi wrote:
>> On Monday 02 April 2012 22:15:08 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>> As I understand it the latest recommendation is to use apt-get from
>>> command line and aptitude interactively.
>>
>> Ah! Do you not use aptitude at the
On Lu, 02 apr 12, 22:28:18, Lisi wrote:
> On Monday 02 April 2012 22:15:08 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > As I understand it the latest recommendation is to use apt-get from
> > command line and aptitude interactively.
>
> Ah! Do you not use aptitude at the command line? Is that what you are
> sayin
On 20120402_083627, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2012, Paul E Condon wrote:
>
> >> Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages as default and is,
> >> for its robustness, the preferred program for package management from
> >> console to perform system installation and
On Monday 02 April 2012 22:15:08 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> As I understand it the latest recommendation is to use apt-get from
> command line and aptitude interactively.
Ah! Do you not use aptitude at the command line? Is that what you are
saying?
I never use it any other way. I tend to forget
On Lu, 02 apr 12, 17:32:44, Lisi wrote:
> On Monday 02 April 2012 10:48:24 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > I'd suggest this instead:
> >
> > Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages by default and
> > is, for its robustness, the preferred program for package management
> > from con
On Monday 02 April 2012 10:48:24 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> I'd suggest this instead:
>
> Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages by default and
> is, for its robustness, the preferred program for package management
> from console, to perform system installation, and major syst
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Pierre Frenkiel
wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2012, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
>> I don't understand what you mean here, could you please elaborate?
>
>
> Yes I can...
>
> All the discussion started about the following sentence in section 4.4.6
> of the Squeeze Release Not
On Mon, 2 Apr 2012, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
I don't understand what you mean here, could you please elaborate?
Yes I can...
All the discussion started about the following sentence in section 4.4.6
of the Squeeze Release Notes:
The upgrade process for other releases recommended the
On Mon, 2 Apr 2012, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
I don't think this is necessary, the upgrade from a prior release to the
next is to be done by following the corresponding release notes anyway.
I agree, It's exactly what is written in the Squeeze release notes
for the upgrade to Lenny.
Not
On Lu, 02 apr 12, 09:10:54, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
>
> I would admit I have made a mistake if didn't find that my
> interpretation is conform to what is written in the releases notes
>
> >>Please follow the instructions in the Release Notes for Debian
> >>GNU/Linux 5.0 to upgrade to 5.0 first
On Du, 01 apr 12, 20:45:02, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> So, I persist to say that the 2 sentences are contradictory. I'll
> propose a slight modification to remove this contradiction:
>
> 1/ in 4.4.6, replace
>
> The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of
> aptitude f
On Mon, 2 Apr 2012, Lisi wrote:
Why "curiously"? I didn't answer most of your ludicrous assertions.
In that case, this "ludicrous assertion" is not from me, but from
the releases notes. It's easier to ignore what you can't answer,
and replace that with insults, the most ignominious for
On Monday 02 April 2012 08:10:54 Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2012, Lisi wrote:
> > I give you: "Pasteur used to recommend that people should wash their
> > hands frequently" is a use of the past tense that clearly says that that
> > statement is no longer true.
>
> I would admit I have
On Sun, 1 Apr 2012, Lisi wrote:
I give you: "Pasteur used to recommend that people should wash their hands
frequently" is a use of the past tense that clearly says that that statement
is no longer true.
I would admit I have made a mistake if didn't find that my
interpretation is conform to wh
On Sun, 1 Apr 2012, Paul E Condon wrote:
Note that apt-get now installs recommended packages as default and is,
for its robustness, the preferred program for package management from
console to perform system installation and major system upgrades to
releases posterior to Lenn
On 20120401_204502, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Lisi wrote:
>
> >Tenses are often very difficult for non-native speakers of English to
> >understand.
>
> It's funny. Do you really think that the the meaning of the past
> tense is different in other languages!?
> IMO, your interp
On Sunday 01 April 2012 19:45:02 Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Lisi wrote:
> > Tenses are often very difficult for non-native speakers of English to
> > understand.
>
> It's funny. Do you really think that the the meaning of the past tense
> is different in other languages!?
Yes, p
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Lisi wrote:
Tenses are often very difficult for non-native speakers of English to
understand.
It's funny. Do you really think that the the meaning of the past tense
is different in other languages!?
IMO, your interpretation of the past tense is wrong: The fact that
a sta
On Wednesday 28 March 2012 14:55:20 Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > How exactly does this contradict the Release Notes?
>
> 1/ The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of aptitude
> for the upgrade.
>
> This is in chapter 4: Upgrades f
On Mi, 28 mar 12, 15:55:20, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
> >How exactly does this contradict the Release Notes?
>
>
> 1/ The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of aptitude
> for the upgrade.
"recommended" (past tense)
> This is
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
How exactly does this contradict the Release Notes?
1/ The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of aptitude
for the upgrade.
This is in chapter 4: Upgrades from Lenny, so seems to actually apply to major
system upgrades.
2/
On Mi, 28 mar 12, 10:56:49, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> >The release note "4.4.6. Upgrading the system" has:
> >http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#upgrading-full
> >The upgrade process for other releases recommended the use of aptitude
> >for the upgrade. Thi
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012, Osamu Aoki wrote:
So your experience is that apt-get is better for such case :-)
cf below
The release note "4.4.6. Upgrading the system" has:
http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#upgrading-full
The upgrade process for other re
Am Mittwoch, 21. März 2012 schrieb Pierre Frenkiel:
> hi,
> I wanted to upgrade from Squeeze to Wheezy, and as I saw in several
> places that aptitude should be preferred to apt-get, I first tried
> with it. I started with only 1 line in sources.list:
> deb http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/ wh
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:01:38AM +0100, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> hi,
> I wanted to upgrade from Squeeze to Wheezy, and as I saw in several places
> that aptitude should be preferred to apt-get, I first tried with it.
> I started with only 1 line in sources.list:
> deb http://ftp.fr.debi
On 21/03/12 22:22, Lisi wrote:
On Wednesday 21 March 2012 13:42:24 Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
I've managed to mislay your follow up after having read it. It would have
helped if you had not copied me in. But no, I do not agree that that is what
the manual means. It says - and means - that aptitud
On Wednesday 21 March 2012 13:42:24 Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
I've managed to mislay your follow up after having read it. It would have
helped if you had not copied me in. But no, I do not agree that that is what
the manual means. It says - and means - that aptitude dist-upgrade will
still work
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Lisi wrote:
Eqivalent does not equal identical.
"Equivalent" alone woukd be ambiguous. wiktionary.org says:
similar or identical in value, meaning or effect; virtually equal
but the aptitude man is not ambiguous:
This command was originally named dist-upgrade
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:01:38 +0100, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> I wanted to upgrade from Squeeze to Wheezy, and as I saw in several
> places that aptitude should be preferred to apt-get,
The advice on what to use seems to change from time to time :-)
> I first tried with it. I started with only 1
On 21/03/12 11:01, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
I then issued: "apt-get dist-upgrade", and all worked perfectly, in less
than 30 minutes.
Awesome!
I had a vm machine that i was trying to upgrade and it failed every
time. I blamed the vm... then i noticed i was trying to upgrade it with
aptitude ful
On Wednesday 21 March 2012 13:42:24 Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> but anyway then are not equivalent.
Eqivalent does not equal identical. If they were identical there would be no
point in having the two of them. None the less they are equivalent, in that
if you are upgrading to a higher version of
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Lisi wrote:
aptitude full-upgrade is the equivalent of apt-get dist-upgrade. aptitude
safe-upgrade has different checks.
It is what is written in the man, but experience shows this is not true.
After installing kernel 3.2 I tried both:
apt-get dist-upgrade, which ga
Hello Pierre,
Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> I wanted to upgrade from Squeeze to Wheezy, and as I saw in several places
> that aptitude should be preferred to apt-get, I first tried with it.
> My question: is it better to also revert to apt-get for package management,
> or is the problem specific to
On Wednesday 21 March 2012 10:01:38 Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> hi,
> I wanted to upgrade from Squeeze to Wheezy, and as I saw in several places
> that aptitude should be preferred to apt-get, I first tried with it.
> I started with only 1 line in sources.list:
> deb http://ftp.fr.debian.org/deb
hi,
I wanted to upgrade from Squeeze to Wheezy, and as I saw in several places
that aptitude should be preferred to apt-get, I first tried with it.
I started with only 1 line in sources.list:
deb http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free
and tried several times "aptitude
82 matches
Mail list logo
