Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
Marc Wilson wrote: I don't know... why do you bother to subscribe to a mailing list, when you can't be bothered to *read* it before whining about someone else's posting? Or did you not notice that I *did* define the terms? I noticed, and I also noticed the tone you used. I just don't see the point. -- John L. Fjellstad web: http://www.fjellstad.org/ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
Marc Wilson wrote: Is there a reason to not actually bother reading the man page for apt-get and learning the difference between the two targets? Why do you bother answer, when giving the answer makes you so uncomfortable? -- John L. Fjellstad web: http://www.fjellstad.org/ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
Hello Thanasis! On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 09:38:18PM -0700, Thanasis Kinias wrote: Let me rephrase that: Given that it is (for a system tracking testing) at times necessary to do `dist-upgrade', is there any reason not to do it always? A quote from man apt-get |dist-upgrade, in addition to performing the function of upgrade, also |intelligently handles changing dependencies with new versions of |packages Thus I dare to conclude dist-upgrade is more complex than just a simple upgrade. ;) So if someone simply/only wants the functionality of 'upgrade' I'd personally recommend to use the less complex method. This applies for example to security updates in Woody, but also to many updates in Sarge. The alternative is to do `upgrade' routinely, and then redo it with `dist-upgrade' when it fails occasionally, which (unless there's a good reason to do it that way) seems like adding a needless extra step. This way you'll just use the complex way only when it's really necessary and stick to the simpler solution otherwise. True, it is an extra step for the admin, but using 'dist-upgrade' all the time means a lot of unnecessary extra steps all the other times for your box. It comes down to a matter of principles: I personally prefer to use the simple tool for a simple task. Certainly nobody will force you to do the same... :-P Cheers, Flo pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 08:23:25PM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote: You're not wondering the same thing as me... I know perfectly well what the two targets do. It's Bill Moseley who's doing the wondering. I always do dist-upgrade also. Since I also always use -u, I'm not worried about its removing or installing things I don't want... Uh, no, all that does is show you what it's going to do without actually *doing* it. It has nothing to do with what you're *allowing* it to do. Assuming it shows you that it intends to remove a package, or install a new one... what are you going to do then? Are you going to still turn it loose, or are you going to investigate why? Odd. I though it was -s that shows you what to it's going to do without actually *doing* it. Man, I really do have a hard time reading the man pages after all! ;) -u enables APT::Get::Show-Upgraded to true which lists what packages are going to be updated, but, IIRC, APT::Get::Show-Upgraded is true by default. Back to my Original Question: Man, do I have bad luck. Seems like lately I post a simple question, but it's too simple and left open to interpretation, someone answers the wrong question and then the thread goes off in some other direction and I never get my answer. ;) I guess email is that way. If I had asked that question in person someone would have responded can you rephrase your question? So I'll rephrase it one more time: Yes, I understand the difference between update and dist-upgrade as the manual describes it and as it's be re-quoted here a few times. My question is if sources.list specifies woody instead of stable so dist-upgrade will not someday upgrade to sarge and since a stable distribution should not change dependencies, IS there a difference between using upgrade vs. dist-upgrade in that case? I don't see that there is a difference. Now, regarding a system running Sid: I've always used dist-upgrade. IIRC, I have had problems in the past just using upgrade with broken dependencies. I also (IIRC) have seen posts here about not using upgrade in Sid. But reading the manual it seems like upgrade should be fine, but more and more packages will be left out of the upgrade due to changing dependencies that happen in Sid. Are there other potential problems that upgrade can cause on Sid that I'm not seeing? -- Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
* Bill Moseley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031205 08:38]: My question is if sources.list specifies woody instead of stable so dist-upgrade will not someday upgrade to sarge and since a stable distribution should not change dependencies, IS there a difference between using upgrade vs. dist-upgrade in that case? I don't see that there is a difference. I think the answer is probably not, but why not err on the side of caution? I think it's kind of like the difference between using sudo or fakeroot to build a deb. In theory, they should produce the same outcome. But why would you issue a more powerful command when a simpler one will suffice? On a stable system, upgrade and dist-upgrade should act the same, but upgrade gives you one extra (albeit small) check to protect you from yourself. I guess the only thing up for debate is whether albeit small amounts to negligible. I think in most cases it probably does, and this discussion is academic. But in certain, off-the-wall hypothetical scenarios (maybe the security team accidentally uploads a package that, for no good reason, Conflicts: with your version of libc6?) using upgrade instead of dist-upgrade will be safer. Ican't think of the off-the-wall hypothetical scenario in which dist-upgrade will be safer. So since they cost the same (or rather, upgrade costs 5 fewer keystrokes ;-) I'd use upgrade. But that's just me. Actually, that's a lie -- I'd use dselect. =) good times, Vineet -- http://www.doorstop.net/ -- http://www.anti-dmca.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 10:01:37AM -0800, Vineet Kumar wrote: * Bill Moseley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [031205 08:38]: My question is if sources.list specifies woody instead of stable so dist-upgrade will not someday upgrade to sarge and since a stable distribution should not change dependencies, IS there a difference between using upgrade vs. dist-upgrade in that case? I don't see that there is a difference. I think the answer is probably not, but why not err on the side of caution? I think it's kind of like the difference between using sudo or fakeroot to build a deb. In theory, they should produce the same outcome. But why would you issue a more powerful command when a simpler one will suffice? Yes, you are right, the question was just academic. I wanted to make sure that I really understood the difference. This was the result of someone making the blanket statement to me that dist-upgrade was dangerous and the wrong thing to use without explaining why - even when I had explained that I use stable in my sources.list. It's important to me to make sure I understand things before responding to such statements. True, update is the correct operation. The (academic) question was not that, but rather if I had a flaw in my understanding of the differences -- or if there were differences not enumerated clearly in the documentation. You know, someone says you are wrong and it's helpful to make sure you are actually right before saying so... ;) Thanks, -- Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 08:38:02AM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote: -u enables APT::Get::Show-Upgraded to true which lists what packages are going to be updated, but, IIRC, APT::Get::Show-Upgraded is true by default. Yeah. It didn't used to be so, and many people change it so that it's not. Using the '-u' option is therefore the only way to get apt to show you what it's going to do. Using the '-s' option, on the other hand, *does* the operation, but doesn't actually do it. Think simulate. ^_^ Yes, I understand the difference between update and dist-upgrade as the manual describes it and as it's be re-quoted here a few times. My question is if sources.list specifies woody instead of stable so dist-upgrade will not someday upgrade to sarge and since a stable distribution should not change dependencies, IS there a difference between using upgrade vs. dist-upgrade in that case? Yes, there is. For all the reasons stated earlier in this thread. It doesn't matter where the packages come from, it only matters what dependency solution you allow apt to come up with. The difference being that apt will potentially not upgrade some packages that have available upgrades, due to some other package having to change state. I've always used dist-upgrade. IIRC, I have had problems in the past just using upgrade with broken dependencies. I also (IIRC) have seen posts here about not using upgrade in Sid. But reading the manual it seems like upgrade should be fine, but more and more packages will be left out of the upgrade due to changing dependencies that happen in Sid. Correct. The upgrade target does *not* break dependencies. It cannot, because it does not establish them and has no control over them. Packages establish dependencies. All apt can do is try to solve for a solution that fits the parameters (and abilities) you've given it. If that solution means that a package doesn't get upgraded without intervention, then that package just doesn't get upgraded. That's hardly the life-threatening event your average Sid cluebie tries to make it out to be. -- Marc Wilson | The public is an old woman. Let her maunder and [EMAIL PROTECTED] | mumble. -- Thomas Carlyle -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 04:31:25PM +0100, John L. Fjellstad wrote: Marc Wilson wrote: Is there a reason to not actually bother reading the man page for apt-get and learning the difference between the two targets? Why do you bother answer, when giving the answer makes you so uncomfortable? I don't know... why do you bother to subscribe to a mailing list, when you can't be bothered to *read* it before whining about someone else's posting? Or did you not notice that I *did* define the terms? Let me guess... you're one of those special people who should *never* be required to do anything heavy, like read for themselves. -- Marc Wilson | A triangle which has an angle of 135 degrees is [EMAIL PROTECTED] | called an obscene triangle. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 08:41:27PM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote: Is there a reason to use or not use dist-upgrade on Woody machines for security updates? Is there a reason to not actually bother reading the man page for apt-get and learning the difference between the two targets? 'upgrade' - apt CAN'T change a package's installation state 'dist-upgrade' - apt CAN change a package's installation state Further details I leave to the man page. -- Marc Wilson | Clarke's Conclusion: Never let your sense of morals [EMAIL PROTECTED] | interfere with doing the right thing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 11:13:22PM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote: On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 08:41:27PM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote: Is there a reason to use or not use dist-upgrade on Woody machines for security updates? Is there a reason to not actually bother reading the man page for apt-get and learning the difference between the two targets? Sorry, I wasn't clear. Yes, I know the what the docs say. 'upgrade' - apt CAN'T change a package's installation state 'dist-upgrade' - apt CAN change a package's installation state I use woody in my sources.list instead of saying stable. Packages in Stable are, well, stable. There are security updates that will replace packages, of course, but dependencies should not change so there's no installation state to change when doing security updates. Therefore, it's been my assumption that in that case dist-upgrade and upgrade act in the same way. Someone commented that dist-upgrade is the wrong thing to use for security updates, but I'm not clear if that's because of their different environment (stable vs. woody in sources.list) or something else that is not clear to me from the docs. -- Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
scripsit Bill Moseley: On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 11:13:22PM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote: [snip] 'upgrade' - apt CAN'T change a package's installation state 'dist-upgrade' - apt CAN change a package's installation state [snip] Therefore, it's been my assumption that in that case dist-upgrade and upgrade act in the same way. Someone commented that dist-upgrade is the wrong thing to use for security updates, but I'm not clear if that's because of their different environment (stable vs. woody in sources.list) or something else that is not clear to me from the docs. I wonder the same thing as Marc. I always do dist-upgrade also. Since I also always use -u, I'm not worried about its removing or installing things I don't want... So, if I'm doing -u to verify all changes, is there any reason _not_ to do dist-upgrade for routine upgrades? -- Pax vobiscum; pax cum omnibus. Thanasis Kinias tkinias at asu.edu Doctoral Student, Department of History Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
Marc Wilson wrote: On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 08:41:27PM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote: Is there a reason to use or not use dist-upgrade on Woody machines for security updates? Is there a reason to not actually bother reading the man page for apt-get and learning the difference between the two targets? ? So you automatically assume that when a person reads the man page he understands what's being said? That's not the best assumption IMHO. Benedict -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 02:57:16PM -0700, Thanasis Kinias wrote: I wonder the same thing as Marc. You're not wondering the same thing as me... I know perfectly well what the two targets do. It's Bill Moseley who's doing the wondering. I always do dist-upgrade also. Since I also always use -u, I'm not worried about its removing or installing things I don't want... Uh, no, all that does is show you what it's going to do without actually *doing* it. It has nothing to do with what you're *allowing* it to do. Assuming it shows you that it intends to remove a package, or install a new one... what are you going to do then? Are you going to still turn it loose, or are you going to investigate why? There should never be a reason to need 'dist-upgrade' if you're running stable. So, if I'm doing -u to verify all changes, is there any reason _not_ to do dist-upgrade for routine upgrades? Certainly. See above. If you don't want to give apt the power to change the installation state of a package, you don't use 'dist-upgrade'. Why would you give it that power, if it weren't necessary? -- Marc Wilson | The scene is dull. Tell him to put more life into [EMAIL PROTECTED] | his dying. -Samuel Goldwyn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 02:11:30AM +0100, Benedict Verheyen wrote: ? So you automatically assume that when a person reads the man page he understands what's being said? That's not the best assumption IMHO. No. I assume that if a person reads the man page, and does not understand it, he will then ask questions about the part he does not understand. Until he has at least attempted the available information, his questions are more than likely going to be meaningless. Perhaps you don't see a difference there. I most certainly do, especially in these days where most people think they're above doing anything for themselves. -- Marc Wilson | A political man can have as his aim the realization [EMAIL PROTECTED] | of freedom, but he has no means to realize it other | than through violence. -- Jean Paul Sartre -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
scripsit Marc Wilson: On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 02:57:16PM -0700, Thanasis Kinias wrote: I wonder the same thing as Marc. You're not wondering the same thing as me... I know perfectly well what the two targets do. It's Bill Moseley who's doing the wondering. Sorry, brain-finger connection problem there. I do not doubt your expertise. I always do dist-upgrade also. Since I also always use -u, I'm not worried about its removing or installing things I don't want... Uh, no, all that does is show you what it's going to do without actually *doing* it. It has nothing to do with what you're *allowing* it to do. Assuming it shows you that it intends to remove a package, or install a new one... what are you going to do then? Are you going to still turn it loose, or are you going to investigate why? If I discover that it's going to remove something I need (for whatever reason), I will certainly investigate why, and use pins as necessary to prevent it. I'm not going to empower apt potentially to remove packages without checking with me first! There should never be a reason to need 'dist-upgrade' if you're running stable. That certainly makes sense. I should have mentioned, I suppose, that I run mostly testing -- so there is fairly often the need to do `dist-upgrade'. Certainly. See above. If you don't want to give apt the power to change the installation state of a package, you don't use 'dist-upgrade'. Why would you give it that power, if it weren't necessary? Let me rephrase that: Given that it is (for a system tracking testing) at times necessary to do `dist-upgrade', is there any reason not to do it always? The alternative is to do `upgrade' routinely, and then redo it with `dist-upgrade' when it fails occasionally, which (unless there's a good reason to do it that way) seems like adding a needless extra step. (Analogy: If a script will only ever be run by bash, why do `FOO=bar; export FOO' when `export FOO=bar' will do?) -- Pax vobiscum; pax cum omnibus. Thanasis Kinias tkinias at asu.edu Doctoral Student, Department of History Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ye olde upgrade vs. dist-upgrade
I always use dist-upgrade on my Woody machine when security announcements come out. I do this out of habit -- I think early on I had problems with just upgrade. Is there a reason to use or not use dist-upgrade on Woody machines for security updates? -- Bill Moseley [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
