• SmoochyPit@lemmy.ca
      0·
      2 months ago

      Maybe OP knew all along that they wanted to use the previous package list to upgrade and fetch the new one after! Maybe we’re all actually inverting it…

      (I’m just being silly, I recognize that an old package list would probably cause issues with installing or upgrading packages.)

      • groet@feddit.org
        1·
        2 months ago

        (I’m just being silly, I recognize that an old package list would probably cause issues with installing or upgrading packages.)

        No problems anywhere you can always install older versions from a repo.

        Upgrade -> update two days ago and then again today will leave me with exactly the same packages as it would if I ran it correctly the first time and then not at all today. Just the state of two days ago.

    • Samskara@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      2 months ago

      That’s the best part of this post. Windows is fully automatic, while on Linux you need to tell apart two terminal commands with confusing naming.

      • eta@feddit.orgEnglish
        1·
        2 months ago

        Not necessarily. On Arch it’s just “sudo pacman -Syu” and on Fedora it’s just “sudo dnf update”.

          • DaTingGoBrrr@lemmy.world
            1·
            2 months ago

            If you’re too stupid to remember one or two commands there are GUI applications available where you can click “a button” to update your system.

            Or make an alias with the update command and name it “update”. This works on every distro.

              • DaTingGoBrrr@lemmy.world
                1·
                2 months ago

                If you can’t remember one or two commands then you are in fact stupid. With that said, Linux is for everyone.

                There are distros that have auto updates as a feature they ship (Linux Mint comes to mind). There are distros that are basically impossible to break and there are distros where you are responsible for building your own system and keeping it functioning. It all depends on your own needs. Linux gives you the freedom to choose and there are more than one way to do things.

      • moobythegoldensock@infosec.pub
        1·
        2 months ago

        On linux, you can do what you wish. You can use a desktop environment with a GUI software center that pops up a notification that prompts you to install updates. Or update by opening the software center and selecting the ones you want. Or use the terminal commands. Or write an alias so you can type “update” and have it execute all your commands in the right order. Or script it to run silently in the background on an automated schedule.

        And you can use your computer during updates, there’s no mandatory update during shutdown/boot.

    • JojoWakaki@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      “I use arch … btw”, also btw

      For APT enjoyers, alias yay="sudo apt update && sudo apt upgrade"

      Also, alias nay="yay -Rns"

      Or yeet if you prefer, for the yay/nay or yay/yeet pair.

      • CoyoteFacts@piefed.caEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        Whoa, do you have something to read up on that? I’d be extremely surprised, since apt-get is supposed to be the script-safe variant, i.e. I’d imagine it’s the more stable of the two.

        • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          0·
          2 months ago

          It’s actually just personal experience, but I stopped using apt-get a few years back now because I noticed if I did apt after apt-get there would often be a bunch of packages it missed.

          Edit: looks like it might be because apt-get can’t satisfy dependencies install new packages when upgrading while apt can since apt is a suite of different apt tools rolled into one.

          • CoyoteFacts@piefed.caEnglish
            0·
            2 months ago

            Yeah I’m reading a little bit on it, and it seems like apt-get can’t install new packages during an upgrade. On initial reading I was thinking there were specific packages it couldn’t download or something, but this makes sense too. Regardless, this is news to me; I always assumed that apt and apt-get were the same process, just with apt-get having stable text output for awk’ing and apt being human-readable. I’ve been using nala for a long time anyway, but this is very useful knowledge.