Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #182674 > unrolled thread

How did you update to stretch?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  How did you update to stretch? Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> - 2017-06-26 15:00 +0200
    Re: How did you update to stretch? Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-06-26 15:20 +0200
      Re: How did you update to stretch? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2017-06-26 15:30 +0200
        Re: How did you update to stretch? Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> - 2017-06-26 15:50 +0200
          Re: How did you update to stretch? Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> - 2017-06-26 16:00 +0200
          Re: How did you update to stretch? Eduardo M KALINOWSKI <eduardo@kalinowski.com.br> - 2017-06-26 16:50 +0200
          Re: How did you update to stretch? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-06-26 17:30 +0200
      Re: How did you update to stretch? Alberto Luaces <aluaces@udc.es> - 2017-06-26 15:50 +0200
      Re: How did you update to stretch? John Elliot V <jj5@jj5.net> - 2017-06-26 19:10 +0200
        Re: How did you update to stretch? Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2017-06-26 19:10 +0200
          Re: How did you update to stretch? John Elliot V <jj5@jj5.net> - 2017-06-26 19:20 +0200
          Re: How did you update to stretch? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-06-26 20:10 +0200
            Re: How did you update to stretch? The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-06-26 20:20 +0200
              Re: How did you update to stretch? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-06-26 21:00 +0200
            Re: How did you update to stretch? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-06-26 20:30 +0200
              Re: How did you update to stretch? The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-06-26 20:40 +0200
              Re: How did you update to stretch? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-06-26 21:40 +0200
                Re: How did you update to stretch? John Elliot V <jj5@jj5.net> - 2017-06-26 22:20 +0200
                  Re: How did you update to stretch? Fungi4All <fungilife@protonmail.com> - 2017-06-27 02:10 +0200
                    Re: How did you update to stretch? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-06-27 09:20 +0200
                  Re: How did you update to stretch? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-06-28 00:00 +0200
              Re: How did you update to stretch? Dave Sherohman <dave@sherohman.org> - 2017-06-27 10:10 +0200
                Re: How did you update to stretch? Fungi4All <fungilife@protonmail.com> - 2017-06-27 22:20 +0200
        Re: How did you update to stretch? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-06-26 19:30 +0200
          Re: How did you update to stretch? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2017-06-26 20:20 +0200
        Re: How did you update to stretch? Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-06-26 23:00 +0200
    Re: How did you update to stretch? Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2017-06-26 17:30 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#182674 — How did you update to stretch?

Hi folks,

I am running debian now since "potatoe", which is a rather loooooong time. And 
in all this time I never got into any bad problems. Impressiv! 

But I think, there is a little think worth to be noticed, and maybe, 
discussed.

I always remarked at every update to the next stable version is, that aptitude 
might  not be the best choice for that. At every update, aptitude is ending in 
a loop with trying to solve dependency conflicts. 

This is strange, as aptitude is running fine when using for regularly upgrades. 

So, how are your experiences? Did you end in the same issues as I ended?

The solution for me is using "apt-get dist-upgrade" and afterwards "aptitude 
full-upgrade". Doing so is working like a charme.

As I read, aptitude is the tool for the future, so I fear, apt-get will 
disappear some day. Please don't! Aptitude does not do the job (full-upgrade) 
very well at the moment. 

I believe, this is not a bug, I more believe. this is a problem for the 
algorithm to solve the complexity of the dependencies due to the complicated 
ruleset aptitude is using. As far as I know, apt-get is using a more simple 
ruleset, so it can resolve dependencies better.

What are your experiences? What are you prefer at distribution upgrades?

If this discussion is interesting for you, I will be happy, if not, sorry for 
the noise. 

Best regards and thanks for debian!

Hans 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#182676

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 02:50:38PM +0200, Hans wrote:
>I am running debian now since "potatoe", which is a rather loooooong time. And
>in all this time I never got into any bad problems. Impressiv!

Nice. Potato was when I got started too, but I do not have any continually 
updated systems from that time. I guess if I had kept my potato machines, I'd 
still be running a Pentium Pro P200 with 32M of RAM. Still useful for something
I'm sure :)

>I always remarked at every update to the next stable version is, that aptitude
>might  not be the best choice for that. At every update, aptitude is ending in
>a loop with trying to solve dependency conflicts.

The release notes explicitly say not to use aptitude for this. You are right,
it does not work as well.

>So, how are your experiences? Did you end in the same issues as I ended?

Nope, I read the release notes and simply did

	(correct sources.list)
	apt-get update
	apt-get upgrade
	apt-get dist-upgrade
	(pending reboot)

>As I read, aptitude is the tool for the future, so I fear, apt-get will
>disappear some day. Please don't! Aptitude does not do the job (full-upgrade)
>very well at the moment.

That's not going to happen. I'm not even sure aptitude is maintained anymore.

-- 

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182678

Hans writes:
> As I read, aptitude is the tool for the future, so I fear, apt-get will
> disappear some day. Please don't! Aptitude does not do the job (full-upgrade)
> very well at the moment.

Use apt.  It is intended as an end-user interface and does everything
apt-get does.  Apt-get is actually intended as a "back-end" tool.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182679

Am Montag, 26. Juni 2017, 08:26:38 CEST schrieb John Hasler:
> Hans writes:
Interesting! I did not notice apt, just used apt-get, apt-cache and so on. 
Just read the manual of apt. However, aptitude has also its worth, as for me 
it is faster to see, which dependencies are existent for the packages. I like 
ncurses-guis. 

Same is related to synaptic, which is good to fix dependency problems. However, 
as far as I know, synaptic is just a frontend for aptitude and apt. 
 
I do not want to blame any of these tools, as they might all have their goods 
and bads. But it would be nice, if we could agree to ONE tool, which is to be 
used for dist-upgrades. 

And this should be well documented! At the moment IMO there are too many tools 
and that makes it very confusing, doesn't it?

Ok,. now we have about 2 years, to find the best way till the next "stable".

Best

Hans  
> Use apt.  It is intended as an end-user interface and does everything
> apt-get does.  Apt-get is actually intended as a "back-end" tool.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182681

Am Montag, 26. Juni 2017, 15:46:00 CEST schrieb Hans:
I am responsing to myself. Just checked aptitude wiki. It is already well 
documented (what I did not know, yet), so there is no further agreement 
necessary.
On the other hand, it is good to see, that my experiences are made by other 
people, too. So I can exclude my own dumbness. :)

All this does not inhibit one thing: making debian better and better (although 
it might be already the best operating system on earth).

Best regards and happy hacking

Hans
> > Hans writes:
> Interesting! I did not notice apt, just used apt-get, apt-cache and so on.
> Just read the manual of apt. However, aptitude has also its worth, as for me
> it is faster to see, which dependencies are existent for the packages. I
> like ncurses-guis.
> 
> Same is related to synaptic, which is good to fix dependency problems.
> However, as far as I know, synaptic is just a frontend for aptitude and
> apt.
> 
> I do not want to blame any of these tools, as they might all have their
> goods and bads. But it would be nice, if we could agree to ONE tool, which
> is to be used for dist-upgrades.
> 
> And this should be well documented! At the moment IMO there are too many
> tools and that makes it very confusing, doesn't it?
> 
> Ok,. now we have about 2 years, to find the best way till the next "stable".
> 
> Best
> 
> Hans

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182684

On Seg, 26 Jun 2017, Hans wrote:
> But it would be nice, if we could agree to ONE tool, which is to be
> used for dist-upgrades.
>
> And this should be well documented! At the moment IMO there are too  
> many tools and that makes it very confusing, doesn't it?

For the specific case of upgrading to stretch, there is one  
recommended tool, and it's documented in the release notes (as are  
other things one should be aware when upgrading).

Spoiler: It's apt-get.

-- 
Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
eduardo@kalinowski.com.br

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182687

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 15:46:00 +0200
Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> wrote:

> Am Montag, 26. Juni 2017, 08:26:38 CEST schrieb John Hasler:
> > Hans writes:  
> Interesting! I did not notice apt, just used apt-get, apt-cache and
> so on. Just read the manual of apt. However, aptitude has also its
> worth, as for me it is faster to see, which dependencies are existent
> for the packages. I like ncurses-guis. 
> 

Aptitude does a better job of resolving dependencies than apt-get.
Unfortunately, the other side of that coin is that it takes longer to
do a particular job, and large numbers of simultaneous upgrades cause
it to run very slowly. It therefore doesn't handle version upgrades
very well, and may break. Some versions ago, aptitude was the
recommended tool for the upgrade, but that has not been the case for
the last two or three.

I have two mobile installations of sid, which may go for months
without getting upgraded. This means that when the time comes, there may
well be hundreds of upgrades, and I gave up long ago using aptitude for
that job. If it's a short time since the last upgrade, I'll use
aptitude, but not otherwise.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182680

Jonathan Dowland writes:

> That's not going to happen. I'm not even sure aptitude is maintained anymore.

Yes, it is.  And I am glad because it is my favourite tool for dealing
with updating and conflict resolving:

https://packages.qa.debian.org/a/aptitude.html

-- 
Alberto

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182693

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 26/06/17 23:12, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>> So, how are your experiences? Did you end in the same issues as I ended?
> 
> Nope, I read the release notes and simply did
> 
>     (correct sources.list)
>     apt-get update
>     apt-get upgrade
>     apt-get dist-upgrade
>     (pending reboot)

Can I ask why you did the apt-get upgrade before the apt-get
dist-upgrade? Why not just go straight for apt-get dist-upgrade..?

-- 
E: jj5@jj5.net
P: +61 4 3505 7839
W: https://www.jj5.net/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182695

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 03:04:30AM +1000, John Elliot V wrote:
> Can I ask why you did the apt-get upgrade before the apt-get
> dist-upgrade? Why not just go straight for apt-get dist-upgrade..?

Probably because (s)he read the release notes:

<https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#minimal-upgrade>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182697

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 27/06/17 03:06, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 03:04:30AM +1000, John Elliot V wrote:
>> Can I ask why you did the apt-get upgrade before the apt-get
>> dist-upgrade? Why not just go straight for apt-get dist-upgrade..?
>
> Probably because (s)he read the release notes

Oh. Right. Thanks. :)

-- 
E: jj5@jj5.net
P: +61 4 3505 7839
W: https://www.jj5.net/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182703

On Mon 26 Jun 2017 at 13:06:29 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 03:04:30AM +1000, John Elliot V wrote:
> > Can I ask why you did the apt-get upgrade before the apt-get
> > dist-upgrade? Why not just go straight for apt-get dist-upgrade..?
> 
> Probably because (s)he read the release notes:
> 
> <https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#minimal-upgrade>

The notes are clear but what is the point of following this procedure?

You do an upgrade, so an upgrade is done. No new packages. Fair enough.
You are none the wiser about what would happen if a dist-upgrade is done
next, so it is still a dive into the unknown.

Then you dist-upgrade. Why not leave out the previous step, unless there
are packages you wish to keep? Perhaps an illustrative example of when
the single-step process dist-upgrade fails would be helpful. The advice

 This has the effect of upgrading those packages which can be
 upgraded without requiring any other packages to be removed
 or installed

simply repeats what apt-get(8) says without its detailed explanation.

(I upgrade, reboot, dist-upgrade, But I am into cargo-cult).

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182704

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2017-06-26 at 14:01, Brian wrote:

> On Mon 26 Jun 2017 at 13:06:29 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 03:04:30AM +1000, John Elliot V wrote:
>> 
>>> Can I ask why you did the apt-get upgrade before the apt-get
>>> dist-upgrade? Why not just go straight for apt-get
>>> dist-upgrade..?
>> 
>> Probably because (s)he read the release notes:
>> 
>> <https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#minimal-upgrade>
>
> The notes are clear but what is the point of following this
> procedure?
> 
> You do an upgrade, so an upgrade is done. No new packages. Fair
> enough. You are none the wiser about what would happen if a
> dist-upgrade is done next, so it is still a dive into the unknown.
> 
> Then you dist-upgrade. Why not leave out the previous step, unless
> there are packages you wish to keep? Perhaps an illustrative example
> of when the single-step process dist-upgrade fails would be helpful.

For one thing, this way any new code from e.g. apt/dpkg/etc. themselves
will be in place before you run the more-complex portion of the upgrade
process, and you'll be able to take advantages of any fixes or
improvements which may result from that.

> (I upgrade, reboot, dist-upgrade, But I am into cargo-cult).

I update, dist-upgrade, autoremove, remove $(deborphan), and then run
'update-flashplugin-nonfree --install', manually as root, about once a
day - not quite every day, but on average multiple times a week over the
gap between major releases.

Since I also track testing (by that name, not by release name) in
sources.list, that means that by the time the freeze ends and the
release officially occurs, I'm essentially already upgraded.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182708

On Mon 26 Jun 2017 at 14:16:57 -0400, The Wanderer wrote:

> On 2017-06-26 at 14:01, Brian wrote:
> 
> > On Mon 26 Jun 2017 at 13:06:29 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > 
> >> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 03:04:30AM +1000, John Elliot V wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Can I ask why you did the apt-get upgrade before the apt-get
> >>> dist-upgrade? Why not just go straight for apt-get
> >>> dist-upgrade..?
> >> 
> >> Probably because (s)he read the release notes:
> >> 
> >> <https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#minimal-upgrade>
> >
> > The notes are clear but what is the point of following this
> > procedure?
> > 
> > You do an upgrade, so an upgrade is done. No new packages. Fair
> > enough. You are none the wiser about what would happen if a
> > dist-upgrade is done next, so it is still a dive into the unknown.
> > 
> > Then you dist-upgrade. Why not leave out the previous step, unless
> > there are packages you wish to keep? Perhaps an illustrative example
> > of when the single-step process dist-upgrade fails would be helpful.
> 
> For one thing, this way any new code from e.g. apt/dpkg/etc. themselves
> will be in place before you run the more-complex portion of the upgrade
> process, and you'll be able to take advantages of any fixes or
> improvements which may result from that.

This is the sort of advice which should be in the Release Notes rather
than the anodyne reason which is given at present. It makes sense to
target one of the most fundamental aspects of Debian before moving on
to other things,

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182706

On Mon 26 Jun 2017 at 19:01:21 (+0100), Brian wrote:
> On Mon 26 Jun 2017 at 13:06:29 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 03:04:30AM +1000, John Elliot V wrote:
> > > Can I ask why you did the apt-get upgrade before the apt-get
> > > dist-upgrade? Why not just go straight for apt-get dist-upgrade..?
> > 
> > Probably because (s)he read the release notes:
> > 
> > <https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#minimal-upgrade>
> 
> The notes are clear but what is the point of following this procedure?
> 
> You do an upgrade, so an upgrade is done. No new packages. Fair enough.

I have a desktop that I don't use very frequently at the moment.
Last time I booted it up, the apt-get upgrade downloaded over 70
packages. There was probably a point-release involved.
That contrasts with my regularly used machines that apt-get -d upgrade
every three hours and email me if their cache contains any packages.

If you watch upgrades taking place, you can see that they're phased.
Apt-ish and Dpkg-ish are setup before other packages are unpacked,
and so on. It's not all just done in one heap.

By running upgrade before dist-upgrade, you reduce complexity by
maximising the compatibility of packages with each other. When
lenny was replaced by squeeze, even these two steps were
insufficient; the kernel and udev needed replacing as a pair after
the (lenny) upgrade and before the (squeeze) dist-upgrade.

> You are none the wiser about what would happen if a dist-upgrade is done
> next, so it is still a dive into the unknown.
> 
> Then you dist-upgrade. Why not leave out the previous step, unless there
> are packages you wish to keep? Perhaps an illustrative example of when
> the single-step process dist-upgrade fails would be helpful. The advice
> 
>  This has the effect of upgrading those packages which can be
>  upgraded without requiring any other packages to be removed
>  or installed
> 
> simply repeats what apt-get(8) says without its detailed explanation.
> 
> (I upgrade, reboot, dist-upgrade, But I am into cargo-cult).

Oh, I forgot. It was necessary, of course, to reboot after replacing
the kernel and udev in the lenny/squeeze process, in order for the
newly installed kernel to be actually running as opposed to just
spinning on the drive.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182707

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2017-06-26 at 14:27, David Wright wrote:

> On Mon 26 Jun 2017 at 19:01:21 (+0100), Brian wrote:
> 
>> On Mon 26 Jun 2017 at 13:06:29 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:

>>> Probably because (s)he read the release notes:
>>> 
>>> <https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#minimal-upgrade>
>>
>> The notes are clear but what is the point of following this
>> procedure?
>> 
>> You do an upgrade, so an upgrade is done. No new packages. Fair
>> enough.
> 
> I have a desktop that I don't use very frequently at the moment. Last
> time I booted it up, the apt-get upgrade downloaded over 70 packages.
> There was probably a point-release involved. That contrasts with my
> regularly used machines that apt-get -d upgrade every three hours and
> email me if their cache contains any packages.

I understood "No new packages." to mean "no not-previously-installed
packages get installed", not "no new versions of existing packages get
installed".

> If you watch upgrades taking place, you can see that they're phased.
> Apt-ish and Dpkg-ish are setup before other packages are unpacked,
> and so on. It's not all just done in one heap.
> 
> By running upgrade before dist-upgrade, you reduce complexity by 
> maximising the compatibility of packages with each other. When lenny
> was replaced by squeeze, even these two steps were insufficient; the
> kernel and udev needed replacing as a pair after the (lenny) upgrade
> and before the (squeeze) dist-upgrade.

This is my interpretation of (one major reason for) the recommendation,
as well.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182713

On Mon 26 Jun 2017 at 13:27:42 -0500, David Wright wrote:

> On Mon 26 Jun 2017 at 19:01:21 (+0100), Brian wrote:
> > On Mon 26 Jun 2017 at 13:06:29 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 03:04:30AM +1000, John Elliot V wrote:
> > > > Can I ask why you did the apt-get upgrade before the apt-get
> > > > dist-upgrade? Why not just go straight for apt-get dist-upgrade..?
> > > 
> > > Probably because (s)he read the release notes:
> > > 
> > > <https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#minimal-upgrade>
> > 
> > The notes are clear but what is the point of following this procedure?
> > 
> > You do an upgrade, so an upgrade is done. No new packages. Fair enough.
> 
> I have a desktop that I don't use very frequently at the moment.
> Last time I booted it up, the apt-get upgrade downloaded over 70
> packages. There was probably a point-release involved.
> That contrasts with my regularly used machines that apt-get -d upgrade
> every three hours and email me if their cache contains any packages.
> 
> If you watch upgrades taking place, you can see that they're phased.
> Apt-ish and Dpkg-ish are setup before other packages are unpacked,
> and so on. It's not all just done in one heap.
> 
> By running upgrade before dist-upgrade, you reduce complexity by
> maximising the compatibility of packages with each other. When
> lenny was replaced by squeeze, even these two steps were
> insufficient; the kernel and udev needed replacing as a pair after
> the (lenny) upgrade and before the (squeeze) dist-upgrade.

Thank you for reminding us of Lenny -> Squeeze. It is not the same this
time but I have been scarred by it! 'apt-get upgrade' is such a simple
step to take first for the reason you give that it would be churlish not
to agree with it for the reason you give.
 
> > You are none the wiser about what would happen if a dist-upgrade is done
> > next, so it is still a dive into the unknown.
> > 
> > Then you dist-upgrade. Why not leave out the previous step, unless there
> > are packages you wish to keep? Perhaps an illustrative example of when
> > the single-step process dist-upgrade fails would be helpful. The advice
> > 
> >  This has the effect of upgrading those packages which can be
> >  upgraded without requiring any other packages to be removed
> >  or installed
> > 
> > simply repeats what apt-get(8) says without its detailed explanation.
> > 
> > (I upgrade, reboot, dist-upgrade, But I am into cargo-cult).
> 
> Oh, I forgot. It was necessary, of course, to reboot after replacing
> the kernel and udev in the lenny/squeeze process, in order for the
> newly installed kernel to be actually running as opposed to just
> spinning on the drive.

It was. I am a creature of habit. I still reboot between upgrade and
dist-upgrade when I eventually upgrade a machine from one distribution
to another.

-- 
Brian.
-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182716

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 27/06/17 05:39, Brian wrote:
> It was. I am a creature of habit. I still reboot between upgrade and
> dist-upgrade when I eventually upgrade a machine from one distribution
> to another.

Do you ever use configuration management tools like Salt Stack?

 https://saltstack.com/

I'm just starting out with Salt, and I haven't figured out what you do
if you want to put a reboot between various configuration steps...

-- 
E: jj5@jj5.net
P: +61 4 3505 7839
W: https://www.jj5.net/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182726

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

> On 27/06/17 05:39, Brian wrote:
>> It was. I am a creature of habit. I still reboot between upgrade and
>> dist-upgrade when I eventually upgrade a machine from one distribution
>> to another.

When one uses synaptic there is reload (update) and upgrade, it does not distinguish
between dist and non-dist upgrade. I assume it is dist-upgrade. So if synaptic has a new
edition (which I assume its dependencies may have been updated) it sounds wise to
upgrade it alone (w/ dependencies) and then restart it and run the upgrade.
Would these be correct assumptions? In most cases I use apt, and synaptic when I am
searching for a useful package, due to descriptions, snapshots, etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182733

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 20:07:06 -0400
Fungi4All <fungilife@protonmail.com> wrote:

> > On 27/06/17 05:39, Brian wrote:  
> >> It was. I am a creature of habit. I still reboot between upgrade
> >> and dist-upgrade when I eventually upgrade a machine from one
> >> distribution to another.  
> 
> When one uses synaptic there is reload (update) and upgrade, it does
> not distinguish between dist and non-dist upgrade. I assume it is
> dist-upgrade. So if synaptic has a new edition (which I assume its
> dependencies may have been updated) it sounds wise to upgrade it
> alone (w/ dependencies) and then restart it and run the upgrade.
> Would these be correct assumptions? In most cases I use apt, and
> synaptic when I am searching for a useful package, due to
> descriptions, snapshots, etc.

Look at Settings->Preferences General tab. From the Help:

"Default Upgrade
The default upgrade method marks upgrades of installed packages only.
If the later version of a package depends on not installed packages or
conflicts with an already installed package, the upgrade will not be
marked. 

"Smart Upgrade (Dist-Upgrade) The smart upgrade method tries to
resolve package conflicts intelligently. This includes installing
additional required packages and preferring packages with higher
priority. Smart upgrade is also known as dist-upgrade in the console
tool apt-get. "

Except that 'Smart Upgrade' is actually the default, not 'Default
Upgrade'.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web