Lloyd Zusman wrote:
Pinning is roughly equivalent to 'apt-get install randompackage/unstable'. Neither will try to pull in unstable dependencies, but will instead just fail if the package can't be installed with testing dependencies. 'apt-get -t unstable install randompackage' is probably the worst command to use since it will pull unstable dependencies for uninstalled packages even for unversioned dependencies. Pinning has essentially been useless for the past 2 months, but for the 10 months before that I thought that pinning *was* useful so it seems disingenuous to claim that it is always useless.Erik Steffl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:[ ... ] but the point is that pinning is not very good because you either bring a number of important packages from unstable (libc6, perl etc) or you simply cannot use it. reading of the manual page and checking the apt-listchanges does not solve the problem. i.e. you recommend pinning, person reads the manpage, tries pinning and finds out that it was pretty much pointless excercise because it would upgrade large part of the system to unstable. or yet another wording: Adrian Bunk wasn't complaining about system actually upgrading packages but about system trying to upgrade packages. erikI want to be sure that I understand the significance of this. Are you saying that pinning a certain package, say "randompackage", to "unstable" in /etc/apt/preferences is worse than doing this the first time that "randompackage" is installed? ... apt-get -t unstable install randompackage Or do these two methods have equally undesirable effects?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
