difference between "do-release-upgrade" and "apt-get dist-upgrade"

[Tom H]

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Marius Gedminas <marius at pov.lt> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 01:25:50PM -0500, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 13:43:08 -0400
>> Tom H <tomh0665 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Cybe R. Wizard
>> > <cyber_wizard at mindspring.com> wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 17:12:05 +0200 (CEST)
>> > > "Amedee Van Gasse (ub)" <amedee-ubuntu at amedee.be> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> I am unable to find any *official* documentation on the Ubuntu
>> > >> website, or developer notes, that explain *why*. Something that
>> > >> explains in detail *what* it is exactly that "do-release-upgrade"
>> > >> does.
>> > >>
>> > >> Something that I can link to.
>> > >
>> > > I have no info to which to link, but I think Alan hit it on the head
>> > > when he said that the official method disables 3rd party
>> > > repositories. That is likely the single and only thing separating
>> > > the methods.
>> >
>> > That can be done manually and is, in fact, recommended in Debian
>> > release notes.
>> >
>> If done, doesn't the apt-get method do just what 'release-upgrade -d'
>> or 'do-release-upgrade do'? IIANM, there is no difference in the end
>> product; it's just easier on the inexperienced to not need to remember
>> all the different steps to do.
>
> I seem to remember people who developed do-release-upgrade mentioning
> other things like telling apt about which packages are no longer
> important and can be removed, to ease transitions. Apparently apt-get
> dist-upgrade doesn't get every case right.
>
> (Aptitude is recommended as the default dpkg frontend for the same
> reason: supposedly its dependency resolver is smarter.)

Apparently, apt-get is now just as good, if not better (there was a
post on debian-user to that effect and a request to remove the line in
the Debian manual that recommends aptitude over apt-get).