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

[Marius Gedminas]

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.)

Marius Gedminas
-- 
If it weren't for the last minute, nothing would ever get done.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20101004/a7c390a0/attachment.sig>