Le 06/11/2025 à 11:56, Antony Stone a écrit :
> On Thursday 06 November 2025 at 11:49:48, Didier Kryn wrote:
>
>> Le 05/11/2025 à 21:43, ael via Dng a écrit :
>>> It does what it says on the tin: "dist-upgrade" -- upgrades to the next
>>> distribution (subject to sources...)
>>>
>>> apt upgrade stays on the current distribution. apt full-upgrade is the
>>> equivalent to dist-upgrade and allows a new distribution. Roughly.
>> Ah! I always wondered what apt brought in that was better than
>> apt-get. Is there anything other than a different and misleading wording?
> I don't believe that was the distinction being made.
>
> As far as I know, "apt upgrade" and "apt-get upgrade" do the same thing as
> each other.
>
> Similarly, "apt dist-upgrade" and "apt-get dist-upgrade" do the same thing as
> each other.
>
> The difference is that using "upgrade" stays on the current release version,
> whereas "dist-upgrade" takes you to the next release.
>
Are you meaning that you can have the old and new distros declared
in the sources.list? I never tried to have two distros declared in the
same time and wonder what would do "dist-upgrade" from the old distro
(hopefully just upgrade), or "upgrade" before "dist-upgrade" from a new
distro. Never tried these two combinations; I always changed the
sources.list just before "dist-upgrade".
So what is the difference between "dist-upgrade" and "full-upgrade"
in apt?
I was ranting because I don't like that perfectly working tools are
rewritten for just the sake of rewriting them. There should be a serious
motivation to do such a thing. Motivations like more functionnalities,
improved UI, or better maintainability... but not just the fun of
wasting one's time in rewriting, confusing users and creating new bugs.
-- Didier
::
Re: [DNG] excalibur upgrade fails (…
