A grumpy editor's calendar search
Posted Mar 10, 2004 13:22 UTC (Wed) by rise
In reply to: A grumpy editor's calendar search
Parent article: A grumpy editor's calendar search
Your original comment looks to me to be either highly misleading to users unfamiliar with apt or outright wrong. Both the Debian FAQ and the APT HOWTO recommend dist-upgrade in places specifically because of its ability to handle dependencies correctly. The author's direct mistake was simply that he missed noticing a removal and that's logically independent of your claim about dist-upgrade's suitability. I can see how you might jump to the conclusion that dist-upgrade is for version upgrades only from the more extensive documentation that accompanies doing something that complex with it, but a closer reading might be order.
The "very long-winded" potshot you took seems a little over the line as well. The user who responded to you quotes the canonical descriptions of the functions and then explains why dist-upgrade is sometimes unnecessary. He tried to justify his position and provide evidence to let others decide for themselves while you've wallowed in proof by assertion. Could you please offer even one shred of evidence instead of the straw-man argument about "complete documentation" and your naked statement that you're right?
Recklessly directing Debian users to avoid using the tool that properly supervised does the best job of keeping a system up to date and consistent is a disservice to the community.
to post comments)