PDA

View Full Version : Why does update-manager exist?


ki4jgt
October 2nd, 2010, 09:20 PM
If update-manager can't update some packages, then why have it? Why not tie Ubuntu software center into synaptic and update through it?
bash
October 2nd, 2010, 09:34 PM
If update-manager can't update some packages, then why have it? Why not tie Ubuntu software center into synaptic and update through it?

If update manager can't update some packages, then there normally is something wrong with the packages or their dependencies. This has nothing to do with update-manager. Broken dependencies can be a result of some ppas updating specific components and thereby breaking the dependencies of other packages.

Are you having a problem with a specific package?
ki4jgt
October 2nd, 2010, 09:48 PM
No, but this isn't the first time I've updated Ubuntu with um and had to resort to using synaptic b/c I got a message stating that the system could only do a partial upgrade.
Bachstelze
October 2nd, 2010, 09:51 PM
If update manager can't update some packages, then there normally is something wrong with the packages or their dependencies.

I don't know about update-manager, but if it's like apt-get upgrade it will not upgrade a package if the upgrade requires installation of a new package. It happens from time to time, for example when a new revision of the kernel is released, and doesn't mean there is something wrong in the user's system.
CharlesA
October 2nd, 2010, 10:00 PM
I don't know about update-manager, but if it's like apt-get upgrade it will not upgrade a package if the upgrade requires installation of a new package. It happens from time to time, for example when a new revision of the kernel is released, and doesn't mean there is something wrong in the user's system.

You'd have to use apt-get dist-upgrade to add those.

I'm not sure if update manager works the same way or not.
bash
October 2nd, 2010, 10:54 PM
You'd have to use apt-get dist-upgrade to add those.

I'm not sure if update manager works the same way or not.

Should be - update-manager calls them partial upgrades. AFAIK partial upgrade of update-manager only appears if there is a new package that needs to be installed or a package that will be removed.
ki4jgt
October 2nd, 2010, 11:30 PM
No offence but, it's still annoying and forces the user to revert to Synaptic.
Lucradia
October 3rd, 2010, 12:13 AM
No offence but, it's still annoying and forces the user to revert to Synaptic.

apt-get is not synaptic. Synaptic is worse off to do dist-upgrades with.
ki4jgt
October 3rd, 2010, 12:18 AM
That's what I always do my upgrades with. It doesn't come up with any errors. Or none that it notifies me about.
cariboo
October 3rd, 2010, 01:00 AM
If you're running a released version, there is nothing wrong with doing partial upgrades, it just means that some of the dependencies aren't available yet. If you set your updates for weekly, or bi-weekly, you'll almost never see a partial update.
CharlesA
October 3rd, 2010, 01:31 AM
If you're running a released version, there is nothing wrong with doing partial upgrades, it just means that some of the dependencies aren't available yet. If you set your updates for weekly, or bi-weekly, you'll almost never see a partial update.

I don't usually use update manager, but I think the only time I see something like "some packages were held back" is when there are updates to the kernel.

Are those also considered "partial upgrades" as well?