Ubuntu 9.10 repeated dialogue: "Ubuntu is running in low-graphics mode"

[Markus Schönhaber]

08.12.2009 15:41, Leonard:

> Markus Schönhaber wrote:

>> On Karmic there is indeed no dependency conflict, so 'safe-upgrade'
>> won't keep back packages, so it will do the same as
>> 'full-upgrade'/'dist-upgrade' *in this case*.
>>    
> Why is this case any different especially with my above evidence/statement?

Because no packages are kept back, of course.

> Your probably right as the man indicates however, the mans all rarely 
> up-t0-date and
> wrong at times and admittedly I rarely read them as I find them 
> unproductive and confused.
> All I can say is that my experience is somewhat different as indicated 
> on my replies.

I don't doubt that (and never did). But the fact that you never
experienced a difference between 'safe-upgrade' and 'full-upgrade'
proves exactly one thing: that you never experienced a difference
between 'safe-upgrade' and 'full-upgrade'. It especially does not prove
that no difference exists.

OTOH I found this in the NEWS file in aptitude's source:

| Version 0.4.10                              "Oscillating Reindeer"
|
|- New features:
| [...]
|   * safe-upgrade will now install new packages to fulfill dependences
|     (but it will never remove packages, downgrade packages, or install
|     a version that's not the default).  The option --no-new-installs
|     will disable this behavior.

If we come back to the bind update, this post-Hardy change in aptitude
seems to explain why on Hardy 'full-upgrade' is needed while on Karmic
'safe-upgrade' suffices.

Nevertheless: the fact remains that 'safe-upgrade' and 'full-upgrade'
*are* different. The above mentioned change simply reduces the
probability that your own experience will prove you wrong ;-)

-- 
Regards
  mks