On Wed, 30 May 2018 18:53:54 +0100 Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed 30 May 2018 at 00:31:25 +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoğlu wrote: > > > On Tue, 29 May 2018 20:39:28 +0100 Brian said: > > > > > If a package is upgraded, surely a user would want any new > > > packages to be installed if they are required to satisfy > > > dependencies. apt's designed behaviour looks more sensible than > > > apt-get's. > > > > Then removal of blocking packages are equally (if not more) > > sensible than installing new ones. There is a well designed clear > > cut distinction between apt-get upgrade and dist-upgrade. "upgrade" > > upgrades the system > > As there is between apt upgrade and apt full-upgrade. > > > non-intrusively, while "dist-upgrade" does that intrusively as its > > name suggests. OTOH apt upgrade's behavior is in-between, > > semi-intrusive, and spoils that clear-cut distinction. Therefore I > > think apt-get works more sensible than apt in this regard. > > I'm sorry, the "intrusive/non-intrusive" aspect doesn't seem that > useful to me. After an update, apt can tell you which packages are > upgradable. That aspect strikes me as being very informative. > This discussion led me to use apt-get again, instead of apt, which I used to keep stretch installations up to date. The occasion was a security update notification for the git package. apt-get update printed 30 lines or so (sorry, I did not save the output) but mentioned nothing about the need to upgrade. apt-get upgrade produced no output. There is nothing in /var/log/apt/term.log or /var/log/apt/history.log to indicate that apt-get was used. apt update mentioned 3 packages needing upgrade apt upgrade processed the 3 packages and /var/log/apt/term.log and /var/log/apt/history.log show this. Is the above to be expected and is there some configuration change needed if I want to use apt-get again? -Dan