On Mon 26 Jun 2017 at 18:27:28 +0100, Joe wrote: > On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 03:04:30 +1000 > John Elliot V <j...@jj5.net> wrote: > > > 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..? > > > > As far as I remember, that's been advised, not mandatory, in all the > upgrade sections of release notes that I have ever seen. Presumably, > serious problems in an upgrade are potentially less difficult to > recover from than those during a dist-upgrade, as only new software and > version changes have been installed.
Some time round about Etch or Potato there was a problem with udev and the two-step process was obligatory and also involved a reboot. My recollection might be incorrect but, to some extent, the procedure has passed into folklore. > Package architecture changes and other alterations which only a > dist-upgrade can achieve would seem to me to be likely to be harder to > roll back. Of course, there's no reason why a small number of problems > in only the dist-upgrade changes should not occur, making no > difference to the methods. Indeed. > Maybe it's also for the psychological effect of dividing the task into > two parts, with time for a break and a sigh of relief when the first > part goes without difficulty... I really like that as an explanation. Following the two-step procedure does no harm; it lowers the blood pressure! -- Brian.
