Sven Joachim wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > Florian Lindner wrote: > >> root@xxx:~# aptitude full-upgrade > >> No packages will be installed, upgraded, or removed. > >> but apt-get > >> root@xxx:~# apt-get dist-upgrade > >> The following packages will be REMOVED: > >> upstart > >> The following NEW packages will be installed: > >> e2fsprogs libss2 sysvinit > >> 0 upgraded, 3 newly installed, 1 to remove and 0 not upgraded. > >> Why do aptitude and apt-get give different answers? > > > > The results will often be different because the resolution algorithms > > in the two different programs are different from each other. This is > > why at different times in history Debian has officially recommended > > one or the other. They have not been completely interchangeable with > > each other. > > Here the difference is that "apt-get dist-upgrade" insists on pulling in > any removed essential packages, while "aptitude full-upgrade" leaves > those alone. Both approaches have their disadvantages, although I > consider aptitude's behavior the lesser evil.
Ah... I did not know that! So then to preserve the upstart configuration would you recommend marking it as 'hold' so that apt-get won't consider the action in the future? I think this is needed. apt-mark hold upstart I tested that in a VM and it seemed to avoid the problem of it being presented as an upgrade candidate. Thanks, Bob
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
