Hi Paul,
Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 08:47 +0100, Axel Beckert wrote:
> > which is one reason why "aptitude upgrade" is deprecated in favour of
> > "aptitude safe-upgrade".
>
> aptitude safe-upgrade has the same behaviour in this case, it still
> installs sysvinit-core instead of systemd-sysv.
Sorry, my fault -- I wasn't precise enough. Yes, they are the same,
but "upgrade" is the deprecated subcommand name for "safe-upgrade". I
just wanted to emphasize that because it works differently by default,
it has been renamed.
> > But apt-get has a commandline switch to behave that way, too:
> > "apt-get --with-new-pkgs upgrade"
>
> Unfortunately not available in wheezy, I expect if it existed there then
> it would also install sysvinit-core.
Ah, fsck. Sorry. only did check Jessie's apt man page. That's a pity,
indeed. There also doesn't seem to be an option for use with -o.
> > Ok, I also understand the latter reasoning. But doesn't that mean that
> > there are thing "apt-get dist-upgrade" can't/doesn't solve? Or is this
> > step only necessary if "apt-get dist-upgrade" didn't solve everything,
> > e.g. with 3rd-party repos or such?
>
> I've encountered situations where aptitude could find the right upgrade
> path but apt-get couldn't, mostly with a system running experimental,
> unstable and testing (decreasing pin order).
That aptitude is said to be better in dependency resolution when
mixing releases sounds familiar, yes. Not sure why, though.
Regards, Axel
--
,''`. | Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
`- | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
