[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 02/01/14 17:49, Tom wrote: > His mail suggest he did > > apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade > > I have a feeling an "apt-get upgrade" might have been needed to get the > lists in order > Tom te tom te tom > > apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade Check more carefully: Cerce apt # sed -i 's/olivia/petra/g' sources.list Cerce apt # sed -i 's/raring/saucy/g' sources.list Cerce apt # ls sources.list.d/ local-repository.list official-package-repositories.list Cerce apt # sed -i 's/raring/saucy/g' sources.list sources.list.d/*.list Cerce apt # sed -i 's/olivia/petra/g' sources.list sources.list.d/*.list Cerce apt # apt-get upgrade Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Cerce apt # script /var/log/dist-upgrade.log Script started, file is /var/log/dist-upgrade.log Cerce apt # apt-get dist-upgrade Reading package lists... Done He ran "apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade" at the very start, but that was to make sure his existing system was up to date before doing the version upgrade. After he edits the *.list files, the next command is "apt-get upgrade": Julian probably just made a typo. He wanted to do "apt-get update" instead. After that he correctly starts the logging with script and runs "apt-get dist-upgrade", which would have then worked as expected if not for the accidental switch of "upgrade" for "update" in the immediately preceding step. I did actually have to read through his post quite carefully a couple of times before I spotted it to be fair: you know how our industry is... the devil is most definitely in the details. A misplaced quote here or a missing operand there makes all the difference! Regards -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq