On 2015-11-12 21:57:33 +0000, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > In your example above, using hold also would not install v2 from > testing, and when v4 appears, you notice and unhold, and all is well. > What's the drawback of using Hold in your use-case?
No, when a package is on hold, aptitude does not give any notice when a new version arrives. That's why I don't like it. > For example, I had forbidden the versions of LibreOffice in > experimental, and the resolver still allows me to upgrade to the newer > versions of LibreOffice in unstable when they arrive (the packages > show up in "Upgradable", and the version arriving in unstable is > shown). [...] > >> Considering other suites and not only testing and unstable, there > >> could be v9-2+exp1 appearing soon, not fixing the issue that concerns > >> the person but with other dangerous/disruptive changes that it is > >> offered (e.g. depending on a broken version of libimportant), and > >> v9.2~backport1 could actually fixes the issue and one would like to > >> install (but ~backport1 makes it to be "smaller" than the given > >> version, so it would not show). > > > > Ditto, aptitude only shows the latest version, so that only v9-2+exp1 > > is visible. > > Nope, it shows the candidate version in the right-most column (e.g. > the latest in unstable instead of the most recent in experimental, > unless experimental is pinned higher). But then, you don't need to forbid versions in experimental. > > But with Hold, one cannot see when a new version is available. > > The candidate version (not the highest, but the candidate; e.g. the > latest in unstable instead of the one in experimental) is shown in the > right-most columns. Once it reaches a version that you are satisfied > with, you unhold and it will be allowed to install. To know whether I am satisfied with some version, I need to know whether there is a new version. Otherwise the package remains on hold forever. > >> There are multiple ways to verify if new versions were released -- > >> curses interface, > > > > No, this is not visible with the curses interface. > > It does: when there are newer *candidate* versions it shows in the > list of packages as "upgradable", it shows the candidate version in > the right-most column (as I explained above), and all the versions are > listed in the package info screen. No, you didn't explain anything. How can I know that the version is *new*??? > If one considers the bigger picture, forbidding versions or marking on > hold should be exceptional measures, not something that one does all > of the time. I do this many times because packages have major bugs. > If there is only one bad version that is known to misbehave, OK, one > forbids that. > > If there are multiple versions that one wants to forbid, then there is > something seriously wrong with the package (or something needed by the > current versions that other versions don't provide), so one might as > well use Hold until the situation clears up. But one can miss security fixes, which is really bad. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
