Gunnar Wolf a écrit : > > >It is not only that - It is because apt-get is an infrastructure >manager, not an individual package manager. dpkg does work on single >packages, but apt-get works on the whole collection - and it could >lead to inconsistencies if you let apt-get do a half-assed job and >upgrade just one out of many packages - There might be dependencies >down there, and this kind of command would not follow them (or would >be inconsistent with the user's wishes of upgrading _only_ that). > >Greetings, > > > Well, ok for that, but I was speaking of the non-trivial upgrade. I mean when upgrade e.g. samba, I want to upgrade it and, of course all its needed dependency upgrade. dpkg of course is great for installing a package alone. But I was wondering why apt-get install <package> does an upgrade if I don't have the latest version (that is ok the default behaviour) and why apt-get upgrade <package> doesn't do that thing. It seemed to be strange... But what everyone says in this thread can justify such a thing.
But I would find more logical to do install to install a package... If it is already installed, why not, upgrade it... but it is an upgrade and not an installation. So I whish that apt-get upgrade <package> do the same as apt-get install <package> (well I know that upgrade roughly consists in removing the package and installing the new one). Cheers ;) , -- Martin Braure de Calignon "Debian addict, active member of Amaya (Amayita)'s fan club (and fan of her tatoo)" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
