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]
