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

[Leonard]

Markus Schönhaber wrote:
> 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 ;-)
>    
I'm not sure just what you are saying above.

Ok, I'm giving up on this one.  You don't seem to appreciate what I'm 
saying especially
the first comment of mine above.  I'm currently up-to-date with no more 
held packages
and have only used safe-upgrade so I'll leave it at that.  BTW, I'm not 
saying you are
wrong; just my experience is different.  I doubt that I've used 
dist(full)-upgrade on
any Ubuntu version more than a couple of times in the last 3 years.  I 
did enjoy the debate

-- 
Leonard
lenc5570 at sbcglobal.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: lenc5570.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 95 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20091208/653f1651/attachment.vcf>