9.04 Beta loading

[Thorny]

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:04:12 -0700, Thorny posted:

> 
>>[...]
>> HS has a valid point that I had not considered -the use of the
>> "full-upgrade" instead of just "upgrade". Most of the time "upgrade" is
>> sufficient, as it's what I'm used to doing for so long now. But I ran
>> "full-upgrade" earlier today and it had the effect of taking care of
>> some packages that were "kept back" in the aptitude dialog, and cleaning
>> out one or two others that weren't installable.
>> 
>> 
> The "upgrade" is basically an alias for safe-upgrade, it is old
> terminology and someday will disappear as an option, probably won't
> disappear very soon though.
> 
> upgrade (safe-upgrade) will upgrade installed packages only. When a later
> version of a package depends on not installed packages or conflicts with
> an already installed package, the upgrade for that package won't happen.
> 
> dist-upgrade will try to resolve package conflicts automagically in a
> smart way. Including installing additional required packages and
> preferring packages with higher priority, thus it can install packages
> that safe-upgrade can't.
> 
> The recommended method in the past was, first do an upgrade, then do a
> dist-upgrade, these days, aptitude seems to be very good and forgiving.
> YMMV.

Oops, silly me, I've used the old terminology dist-upgrade in my reply
instead of mentioning it as full-upgrade. My mind still thinks in the old
terms and doesn't work as well or as quickly these days. Hope I didn't
confuse anyone. Should have written dist-upgrade (full-upgrade)