update-manager vs apt-get
mario.vukelic at dantian.org
Tue Jul 18 07:56:01 BST 2006
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 19:03 +0200, Ante Karamatić wrote:
> update-manager doesn't do anything special. It just removes additional
> manual work (editing sources.list).
> So, command line would be:
> sed -i -e "s/breezy/dapper/g" /etc/apt/sources.list
> apt-get update
> apt-get dist-upgrade
At the very least, it also does the equivalent of installing the
ubuntu-desktop package, I think
> So, as you can see, everything can be done from CLI.
I'd really like to get clarification about what the exact advantages of
update-manager are vs. the correct CLI way (incl. installing
There was a discussion on sounder a while ago about update-manager vs.
apt-get/aptitude for distro upgrades, where some people argued/demanded
that a simple dist-upgrade should be enough. Matt Zimmerman said things
that to me hinted to deeper differences .
Also, it is often said that update-manager is "recommended", but the
upgrade instructions  contain language that suggests that both ways
(GUI vs. CLI) are equivalent
So my questions is, if the correct CLI way is followed as per the
instructions, what does update-manager different, if anything?
More information about the ubuntu-devel