You should be using
apt-get dist-upgrade, as shown here. Using apt upgrade may ( break | have broken ) your system.pveupgrade (since ver. 3.1), which also uses the above command - with more info/advice.Those aren't the same thing though...
apt update updates the repositoriesapt upgrade updates the packages to their newest version in the repositoryapt-get dist-upgrade updates the kernel, may have breaking changes, & should never be done casually like apt update && apt upgrade. You should only dist-upgrade when you are able to spend time making sure everything works after & have time to fix problems that arise. As well as having a backup before as well
Correct. I have a typo there & it should read
apt upgrade (now edited)That all sounds nice, but when 8 came out one of my nodes had to be rebuilt after a
dist-upgrade so I cannot use that on things that I cannot have going down or when I don't have a couple hours to fix a problemYou are following the standard Linux procedures.
apt full-upgrade is the apt equivalent of the apt-get apt-get dist-upgrade.upgrade & not dist-upgrade on a regular basis.Is ironic because in general in Linux the practice of using
upgrade regularly is exactly because apt-get dist-upgrade could Bork your system or certain packages.your statement means that if i do a dist-upgrade, there might be changes. just run several times on different clusters, there are no changes.
Yes
dist-upgrade may cause changes, but it doesn't always or even usually cause changes.apt upgrade is different but apt-get dist-upgrade & apt full-upgrade do the same thing.apt & apt-get there are some differences, sure, but they are the same tool. Some differences would be apt-get leaves behind things in cache while apt doesn't. In most uses apt is considered the newer, better, version of apt-get, though that's not 100% accurate, it's got a few more protections to prevent errors, I think it does a more complete hash check or maybe just does one where apt-get doesn't, & it has some less used things left off.apt there was APT but it was a different thing. APT was the Administrative Packaging Tool & apt-get was the user tool to interact with it. There were also a few other tools like apt-cache & one for settings like apt-settings or apt-set & a few others that I don't remember because I never used them. apt was created as a cleaner interface for the APT that included all of the main functions of the APT that would be called by all the tools. So instead of needing to run apt-cache update or apt-cache search & apt-get install you'd use apt for all of them. But they all interact with the same APT. apt also turns on a few optional features that apt-get requires you to manually choose, like the progress bar for installing packagesapt-get dist-upgrade & apt full-upgrade send the same DoDistUpgrade command to APT. So they do the same thing. Since apt-get doesn't clean up it's cache after it finishes there might be some leftover cache files if you apt-get dist-upgrade that there wouldn't be with apt full-upgrade but that's pretty much it.The biggest difference is that say you run
bobsprogramtodothething & there's an update. Both will do the update the same. But now say you have another package coolprogram7 that has an update. If you run apt-get upgrade coolprogram7 it might say that the program couldn't be upgraded, likely with a reason like "requires programextension9 which is not installed". if you ran apt upgrade coolprogram7 it will upgrade the main program, installing the dependencies the new version needs that the old didn't. Also if the old version used otherprogramextension4 to run that is now replaced with programextension9 then if you install programextension9 then run it again with apt-get upgrade coolprogram7 it will update but the unused otherprogramextension4 will still be installed even if it isn't used by anything as both apt upgrade & apt-get upgrade will not remove anything. apt-get does have an option to install new dependencies if needed apt-get upgrade [B]--fix-missing [/B]coolprogram7 & I believe that will do the same as apt except not with the progress bar.apt full-upgrade on the other hand will see coolprogram7 installed & it will upgrade it, install the new dependencies, remove the old ones, & all's good... Except sometimes there are multiple packages that need things that can't exist together. In that case it will decide which is more important, upgrade that one & completely remove the other one, not even leave it at the old version.That may be true for certain things, I'm surprised that a big comonly-used one is one of them because that usually only happens because something isn't built right. It happens on occasions for smaller, less-used packages, but that's a silly reason to could easily cause problems more often than solve them because one things is built wrong so it will break it. I'd honestly reconsider using a driver that has regular issues like that, instead I'd find an alternative one
well, you can believe the person with the most packaging experience in this thread, or not - I can tell you the recommendation is there for a reason
our own APT wrapper "pveupgrade" (as used by the UI) also does "apt-get dist-upgrade" by the way.
lol, it's fine, it was over a year ago, I fortunately had a recent backup, so it wasn't hard to revert, but it was down for a few hours. I then went & did a new build from scratch when I had more time, but it's an example of why, according to Debian, the base of what you're dealing with here, you should ONLY do a
full-upgrade when you are at the terminal & have a recent backup. Like they say to not include it in scripts specifically. I also had a similar issue when I did a full-upgrade last year on one of my nodes that after a week or so after the upgrade stopped working. I had done the same on a different one of my nodes a few days after the first & was not planning on doing it on my last & main one until I had things migrated to the others, which was smart because the others went down without warning. The 2nd one was still working after the 1st went down for a few days as well, then went down too. I eventually discovered the cause & it was due to the fact that I had a lightweight GUI installed on all 3 of them, either XFCE or LXDE, & after the dist-upgrade it was the most confusing thing because they couldn't connect to the internet but could still RDP & SSH. I eventually discovered it was a network manager, I think the ConMan or something like that that was part of the junk that's installed by the Desktop. The same was still installed on the remaining un-upgraded node, & it was not causing any problems. But that was an upgrade that updated the version of Debian if I remember correctly.In general practice you don't just ignore updates, but you do them at a planned time to prevent problems. From my experience Proxmox has never broken because I didn't update right away, but the opposite is true. I haven't, on the other hand, had Proxmox automatically upgrade me to a newer version without manual intervention, so it can't be true that PVE exclusively uses
dist-upgrade. Updating packages, apt upgrade, is done at a much more frequent rate & shouldn't be the cause of things breaking. If that's Proxmox's way of doing things then Proxmox is not following Linux Best Practices. Period. Full Stop. Now I think Proxmox runs well, & whatever you do to ensure that major releases aren't automatically pushed works well, but if your setup is "Do this thing that could break things all the time so that it doesn't break things"... that's a clear conflict.
you are still not understanding what I am telling you.
In my experience an altered HV host system will eventually break.
I don't remember the exact steps, but I do know that when doing
dist-upgrade on one of my nodes just before I found this forum it went from 8.2.2 to 8.3.5. No repository changes or anything like that. nothing broke, but it definitely DID do an update that I didn't want it doing if I wasn't in front of the terminal.You keep talking like Proxmox is just similar to Debian, but it isn't it IS Debian.
5:27 root@boxmox:~# cat /etc/os-release
PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux 12 (bookworm)"
NAME="Debian GNU/Linux"
VERSION_ID="12"
VERSION="12 (bookworm)"
VERSION_CODENAME=bookworm
ID=debian
HOME_URL="https://www.debian.org/"
SUPPORT_URL="https://www.debian.org/support"
BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.debian.org/"Windows rules still apply to it. Now the Edge rules don't apply because it runs Firefox, the Chrome rules don't apply, but the WINDOWS rules will always still apply. the Debian rules say specifically not to full-upgrade/dist-upgrade when you aren't physically there. Advise people to regularly dist-upgrade all you want, but as all the packages that are on the system are Debian packages & most of them aren't Proxmox packages making a generalized statement about how to do things on Windows contrary to Windows rules because they are better that way for Firefox means that Firefox is doing things the wrong way, not that people who follow the Windows rules are.Yes, I understand what you're saying & even agree, but I had a need to manage things outside of the WebUI on the host, it was by no means a regular workstation. The only things I had outside of VMs/LXCs were Docker & the desktop & xRDP. I've since moved away from needing to do that, but there were things that I lost or were made more inconvenient when I did. I literally now have a whole OneNote page of commands I regularly need to use that before I didn't because I could do them without having to type long commands. Most people aren't terminal monkeys who like to claim everything is better in terminal. & a bunch of things would have been a lot harder to figure out without a GUI, like changing the Favicons for my servers. Once I knew where the files were I could do it via script, but using a GUI to find them to begin with it was quite easy. Unfortunately Proxmox doesn't offer such a necessary option for people running multiple nodes, so I had to do it myself & have to run the script again any time there's a version update. Something I never have to do when using
apt upgrade...
8.2.2 to 8.3.5 is not upgrading from one major release to another, both are based on Debian Bookworm. you would also have upgraded from 8.2.2 to 8.3.5 with "apt upgrade", just with a slightly higher chance of breaking things by accidentally doing a partial upgrade.
That's definitely, provably not true. How do I know? Because 1 of my nodes, which I never fully setup & doesn't currently do anything is still on 8.2.2 after multiple
apt upgrade processes while the other 2 have updated ONLY after a dist-upgrade on 1 & full-upgrade on the other& you can say that all you like but I have 2 examples of where things were broken by not following the Debain standard. & I have one example of things "breaking" by following the Debain standard, & also quickly fixed by following the same standard, to do Dist-upgrade ONLY WHEN AT A TERMINAL. You keep going back to this mistaken premise of NOT doing it at all, rather than the Debian standard of doing it supervised. & I've seen no instances where doing it only when supervised caused a problem.
| Times things have gone wrong with Dist-Upgrade | 2 |
| Times not using Dist-Upgrade has caused a problem | 1 |
| Time & Difficulty recovering from Dist-Upgrade problem | Moderate |
| Time & Difficulty recovering from non Dist-Upgrade problem | Easy |