Bug#977477: release-notes: Update apt upgrade guidance (Was: Re: Bug#977477: apt: Adding progression indication to apt-get output)

2021-03-18 Thread Samuel Thibault
Hello, Paul Gevers, le jeu. 18 mars 2021 12:01:33 +0100, a ecrit: > On 17-03-2021 19:40, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Paul Gevers, le mer. 17 mars 2021 19:38:16 +0100, a ecrit: > >>> "apt upgrade --without-new-pkgs" > >> > >> Looking into history, I see we did this because of > >>

Bug#977477: release-notes: Update apt upgrade guidance (Was: Re: Bug#977477: apt: Adding progression indication to apt-get output)

2021-03-18 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Samuel, all On 17-03-2021 19:40, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Paul Gevers, le mer. 17 mars 2021 19:38:16 +0100, a ecrit: >>> "apt upgrade --without-new-pkgs" >> >> Looking into history, I see we did this because of >> https://bugs.debian.org/931637. I guess your suggestion is a better >>

Bug#977477: release-notes: Update apt upgrade guidance (Was: Re: Bug#977477: apt: Adding progression indication to apt-get output)

2021-03-17 Thread Samuel Thibault
Paul Gevers, le mer. 17 mars 2021 19:38:16 +0100, a ecrit: > > "apt upgrade --without-new-pkgs" > > Looking into history, I see we did this because of > https://bugs.debian.org/931637. I guess your suggestion is a better > alternative? It would probably fill both the objective of upgrading

Bug#977477: release-notes: Update apt upgrade guidance (Was: Re: Bug#977477: apt: Adding progression indication to apt-get output)

2021-03-17 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi Samuel On 16-03-2021 22:17, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Paul Gevers, le mar. 16 mars 2021 22:08:51 +0100, a ecrit: >> wrote: >>> So we'd rather make release-notes document using apt instead of >>> apt-get? I'm fine with that but we *ALSO* need to make sure that debian >>> developers actually

Bug#977477: release-notes: Update apt upgrade guidance (Was: Re: Bug#977477: apt: Adding progression indication to apt-get output)

2021-03-16 Thread Samuel Thibault
Paul Gevers, le mar. 16 mars 2021 22:08:51 +0100, a ecrit: > wrote: > > So we'd rather make release-notes document using apt instead of > > apt-get? I'm fine with that but we *ALSO* need to make sure that debian > > developers actually *test* that path, and not the apt-get path. > > Already the

Bug#977477: release-notes: Update apt upgrade guidance (Was: Re: Bug#977477: apt: Adding progression indication to apt-get output)

2021-03-16 Thread Paul Gevers
Control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi Samuel, On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 16:27:35 +0100 Samuel Thibault wrote: > So we'd rather make release-notes document using apt instead of > apt-get? I'm fine with that but we *ALSO* need to make sure that debian > developers actually *test* that path, and not the apt-get

Bug#977477: release-notes: Update apt upgrade guidance (Was: Re: Bug#977477: apt: Adding progression indication to apt-get output)

2020-12-15 Thread Samuel Thibault
Julian Andres Klode, le mar. 15 déc. 2020 16:15:23 +0100, a ecrit: > > The problem is that these are not equivalent: apt upgrade will attempt > > to install additional packages required by newer versions of existing > > packages. That can lead to conflicts/breaks with other existing > > packages,

Bug#977477: release-notes: Update apt upgrade guidance (Was: Re: Bug#977477: apt: Adding progression indication to apt-get output)

2020-12-15 Thread Julian Andres Klode
Control: reassign -1 release-notes Control: retitle -1 release-notes: Update apt upgrade guidance On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 03:40:55PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Package: apt > Version: 2.1.12 > Severity: normal > > Hello, > > The release notes tell people that they should basically use > >