<p>On Dec 14, 2012 4:39 PM, "Tom H" <<a href="mailto:tomh0665@gmail.com">tomh0665@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:37 PM, William Scott Lockwood III<br>
> <<a href="mailto:vladinator@gmail.com">vladinator@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Colin Law <<a href="mailto:clanlaw@googlemail.com">clanlaw@googlemail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> >> On 13 December 2012 23:11, James R McKenzie <<a href="mailto:jimmckenzie@earthlink.net">jimmckenzie@earthlink.net</a>><br>
> >> wrote:<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> For the record, no other update process was running.<br>
> >>> Jims64BitLinuxMint13LapTop ~ # sudo apt-get update & sudo apt-get<br>
> >>> upgrade<br>
> >><br>
> >> Just for the record, for keeping everything up to date you should use<br>
> >> sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get dist-upgrade<br>
> ><br>
> > While generally I agree with this advice, I wouldn't necessarily do that<br>
> > with servers. Some things that are held back (like new kernels) are held<br>
> > back for very good reasons. You should only use dist-upgrade if you're on a<br>
> > workstation that you don't care about potentially blowing up, or on machines<br>
> > you're testing/qa'ing on for eventual release to production.<br>
><br>
> Can you be sure that, if you use "upgrade" rather than "dist-upgrade",<br>
> all security updates are applied? (Question not criticism!)<br>
><br>
> --</p>
<p>I doubt it. However, 'upgrade' will always tell you packages were held back, it doesn't silently ignore them. This gives you the chance to test them first, or to just apply them with 'dist-upgrade' if you're either unconcerned or brave.</p>