Le 14/05/2017 à 16:10, fsmithred a écrit :
> On 05/13/2017 11:03 AM, Steve Litt wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 May 2017 01:06:38 -1000
>> Joel Roth <joelz@???> wrote:
>>
>>> Long before three weeks ago. I don't usually upgrade or
>>> dist-upgrade unless there is some particular need.
>>> Probably I'm not alone, even if that is not considered
>>> best practice.
>> I never dist-upgrade. From what I hear, it breaks things. If I feel the
>> need to dist-upgrade, it's probably time to back up, reformat the
>> disks, and clean-install a later version.
>>
>> SteveT
>>
> I always do dist-upgrade on stable. The aptitude equivalent is
> full-upgrade. For curiosity, I just did 'apt-get upgrade' on an
> installation that hasn't been upgraded in a long time. Following that with
> 'apt-get dist-upgrade' shows me that I would have missed getting
> firefox-esr without dist-upgade.
>
> When I've compared upgrade to dist-upgrade (or aptitude safe-upgrade vs.
> full-upgrade) in the past, they are usually the same in the stable
> release. In Testing, it's good to do them separately to prevent breakage.

      I suppose this is the difference between "normal upgrade" and 
"smart upgrade" in Synaptic. 'smart' means it is allowed to install new 
packages to satisfy dependencies, like "dist-upgrade".

     When you click upgrade-all in Synaptic, it will use the method you 
have selected as default (normal-upgrade, in my case), but if you 
explicitely ask to upgrade a package, then it performs a smart-upgrade 
but only to satisfy the dependencies of this very selected package.

     I would be afraid to run a dist-upgrade on the whole distro every 
month or so.

     Concerning your example, I retained Iceweasel for severall months 
because the only thing I expected from FF-ESR was more bloat. I 
eventually let it "upgrade"  to FF-ESR after a few months because it 
seemed to get into trouble.

     Didier