|
|
2010-05-06
, 17:54
|
|
Posts: 3,617 |
Thanked: 2,412 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
@ Cambridge, UK
|
#2
|
|
|
2010-05-06
, 17:57
|
|
Guest |
Posts: n/a |
Thanked: 0 times |
Joined on
|
#3
|
|
|
2010-05-06
, 18:08
|
|
Posts: 3,617 |
Thanked: 2,412 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
@ Cambridge, UK
|
#4
|
But isn't it usually a good idea to keep packages up to date? How can I be sure there aren't security issues fixed in an update I'm unable to identify or install through the application manager?
Also, this does not explain why sharing-fmms did not show up in application manager.
|
|
2010-05-06
, 18:10
|
|
Guest |
Posts: n/a |
Thanked: 0 times |
Joined on
|
#5
|
A quick check shows that sharing-fmms is tagged as being in the "libs" section - only apps within a subsection of "user" are shown in app manager (except for "user/hidden").
I don't know exactly why the decision was made not to update libraries automatically - perhaps they were worried that library updates could break existing applications. I prefer to keep up-to-date and run "apt-get upgrade" every now and again.
|
|
2010-05-06
, 18:15
|
|
Posts: 228 |
Thanked: 145 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
|
#6
|
|
|
2010-05-06
, 18:19
|
|
|
Posts: 1,337 |
Thanked: 1,054 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Michigan, USA / Jordan
|
#7
|
This issue comes up every so often, but I've never seen an explanation of what's really going on in the package management subsystem. Are there downsides to apt-get upgrade on Maemo?
Attempting to fix this, I did a sudo apt-get upgrade, and there I see a total of 22 packages with available upgrades, mainly various libraries.
An "apt-get upgrade" upgraded all those packages, but is there a reason they are not upgraded through the application manager?
Has anyone else noticed this?