apt-get vs. Ubuntu Update Manager

[baustiech]

Bob Nielsen Wrote: 
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 02:36:28PM -0500, John DeCarlo wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:33:28 -0700, Shawn Christopher
> > <schristopheraz at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > This afternoon after reading all the E-mail about sound disapearing
> I
> > > decided I wanted to break my system so I was going to do an apt-get
> > > dist-upgrade however it came back as nothing needed to be upgraded.
> OK,
> > > fair enough then I ran the Ubuntu Update Manager and it came up
> with
> > > alot of updates. What is the difference? Shouldn't both of them
> read
> > > from the same sources list?
> > 
> > Shawn, 
> > 
> > Others have already given you good answers, but I wanted to summarize
> > a bit differently.
> > 
> > 1.  apt-get dist-upgrade - done basically once - when you want to
> > change the version of the distribution you are using.  Then you don't
> > use it again until it is time to upgrade again.
> > 
> > 2.  apt-get update - done every day or on a regular basis to update
> > the list of packages available
> > 
> > 3.  apt-get upgrade - this actually compares the packages on your
> > system to the new list generated by the update and sets up a list of
> > packages to download and install.
> > 
> > So because I love to break my system and be on the bleeding edge, I
> > usually do the following a couple of times a day:
> > 
> > sudo apt-get update
> > sudo apt-get upgrade
> > 
> 
> Sometimes a new version of a package will add an additional dependency.
> 
> In that case, the listing will show "held-back" packages. Using apt-get
> dist-upgrade will usually pull in the dependency, as well as the new
> version (sometimes I have to use 'apt-get install', however).
> 
> If one is tracking hoary, it probably is a good idea to use 'apt-get
> dist-upgrade' on a regular basis until it is released.  In any case,
> the
> process will stop and let you know what it proposes to do which will
> allow you to back out, if desired.  Possibly Synaptic or
> Upgrade-manager 
> do the same things, but I've been using apt-get since before they
> became 
> available and have seen no reason to change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

Lots of the fluff on this and other forums comes from just a sheer
lack of understanding the fundamentals, and it affects almost everyone
one way or another.



My one wish for Ubuntu is that serious attention be paid by those in
the know (and those who aspire to be) to thoroughly explain the WHY
behind all things.  Ubu makes linux so easy and accessible to so many
people who lack familiarity, that I feel it's now more important than
ever to be clear about the basics.  It's like, all of a sudden,
everyone's a studio drummer, but they have no idea what a flamacue
is...



My second and final request: please ditch the meaningless names.  5.10
or 510 or whatever at least anchors the release in tangible reality. 
WTH is a warty, hoary, or breezy anything, anyway?  It's like calling a
cup of coffee a "humming buttery"...  ?!  Oh wait, that was a different
thread...



Anyway, to upgrade from Hoary to Breezy:



My current understanding is that you (1) must change the
/etc/apt/sources.list to reflect the Breezy repositories (ie, change
Hoary to Breezy); (2) then do an apt-get update (to find all the new
info from the Breezy repositories); (3) do apt-get dist-upgrade; (4)
cross fingers, expect the worst, and rejoice if/when it just magically
works.



Please slap me if this is wrong.


-- 
baustiech