On Mi, 08 mai 19, 19:52:44, Justin B Rye wrote: > Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > LGTM FWIW, I'll let Justin do his magic :) > > LGTM too. Hang on, I'll set my nitpicker to Turbo mode. > > # You should also make sure the system is <quote>clean</quote> before > > This is "clean" in a rather nerdy sense (cf. the way an "unclean" > filesystem may require ritual purification via fsck); and APT also has > a technical meaning of its own for "apt clean". What we're really > trying to say here is something more like "stable"... but we can't use > that word either. s|<quote>clean</quote>|consistent| ?
> # proceeding with the upgrade. If you are a user of another package manager
> # like <systemitem role="package">aptitude</systemitem> or <systemitem
> # role="package">synaptic</systemitem>, review any pending actions. If a
> # package is scheduled for removal or update in the package manager, it
> might
>
> Is it possible for a scheduled *update* (or I think it means
> "upgrade") to cause trouble? After all, as soon as I call for a
> dist-upgrade they're *all* going to be scheduled for an upgrade.
> There can be problems if the pending upgrade pulls in extra packages,
> but then the real issue is that a package is scheduled for
> installation. In fact maybe it should be:
>
> If a package is scheduled in the package manager for installation or
> removal,
Agreed.
> Or am I missing possibilities?
>
> # negatively impact the upgrade procedure. Note that correcting this is only
> # possible if your APT source-list files still point to
> # <emphasis>&oldreleasename;</emphasis> and not to
> # <emphasis>stable</emphasis> or <emphasis>&releasename;</emphasis>; see
> # <xref linkend="old-sources"/>.
>
> ("Negatively impact" makes me think of "rapid unscheduled
> disassembly".)
s/it might negatively impact/it might interfere in unexpected ways with/ ?
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
