On 15 Oct 2000, David Z Maze wrote:
> Michael P Soulier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > MPS> On Sun, Oct 15, 2000 at 11:08:34AM -0400, Walter Tautz wrote: > WT> > WT> New versions of currently installed packages that cannot be > WT> upgraded without changing the install status of another package > WT> will be left at their current version. An update must be > WT> performed first so that apt-get knows that new versions of > WT> packages are available. > MPS> > MPS> I'm not sure how to read that. During an upgrade, you almost > MPS> always have to change the install status of another package, so > MPS> how does that work? > > If package foo upgrades from version 0.0-1 to 0.0-2 without changing > dependencies, apt-get upgrade will go ahead and upgrade it. If > package bar upgrades from version 0.1-3 to 0.2-1, but version 0.2-1 > also has a dependency on libbaz1 which wasn't previously installed, > APT won't do the upgrade (because libbaz1 would change from "purge" to > "install"). > > apt-get dist-upgrade *will* go ahead and upgrade everything, > regardless of what the new dependency situation is. > OK. but isn't that just a little confusing? the word upgrade versus dist-upgrade. Afterall if I am upgrading something presumably I am upgrading my distributrion? Just nitpicking I guess. Of course dist-upgrade almost sounds like an upgrade. I suppose this is just to make the tool apt-get more flexible. And perhaps it shows that the apt-? tools are indeed meant to be used by the upcoming frontend apt tool that has yet to appear? Just wondering not criticizing ;-) -walter
