> Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 01:22:16PM -0400, Hall Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > I track unstable/sid and also routinely do "apt-get upgrade" > > > with no apparent problems. Every once in a while, I'll answer > > > 'no' to doing the upgrade and then do a "apt-get -u dist-upgrade" > > > and will have the exact same packages to be updated. Other > > > times it will want to update different ones. > > > > > > I must admit that I'm confused... is there much reason to do > > > "upgrade" vs "dist-upgrade". I get the idea I should start using > > > the latter just about all the time. > > > > i don't see any point to using upgrade instead of dist-upgrade. > > But surelly upgrade has some use, I mean, there's probably some > situation in which you would prefer to use upgrade in place of > dist-upgrade, could someone please shed some light in this isue?
I'm going back to using "upgrade" and not "dist-upgrade". The way I see it now, "dist-upgrade" will update existing packages that I have installed, but it will also *add* new packages that are marked as required, recommended, etc by some maintainer. The way I see it, I don't have a "pure" Debian distro anymore. I have my own customized one, with the packages I want and ones I don't want removed, regardless if someone else thinks I should have them. With "apt-get upgrade", I will stay current with the packages I have. If they require a new dependency, apt-get can handle it just fine. This same feature is what annoyed me with Redhat and Mandrake. I would install either distro and then purge things I'll never use (Emacs, for example). Then, I'd get a new disc for the latest and greatest version of the distro and choose the "upgrade" option when installing it. Once again, it adds in new programs, many of which I don't want, like, or will never use. It became routine for me to spend too much time "fixing" things back to the way they were. Regards Hall