On Sunday 13 November 2005 02:49, loos wrote: > Em Sáb, 2005-11-12 às 14:47 +0100, Christof Hurschler escreveu: > > On Saturday 12 November 2005 01:21, Johan Kullstam wrote: > > > Exactly. I was using "testing" for a while and got tired of losing > > > when a package broke and wouldn't get fixed for ages. > > > > > > Of course, a savvy user could default to testing and drag in unstable > > > (with whatever pre-reqs) whenever a breakage occured. Perhaps this > > > method could be made more known. > > > > Wouldn't pinning work very well in this case to allow a mixed > > testing/unstable system? The trouble packages can then be installed from > > unstable using the -t option, with the majority of the rest of the system > > runs at a testing level (for example all the non GUI stuff). > > The times I tried this, the broken packages never "naturally" got back > to testing, they continued following the unstable version even after a > version got back to testing. > The testing/unstable solution, is usually quite "unstable" (not in the > Debian sense, in the programs sense). > > Michel.
This is actually the way pinning should work if I understand it correctly. The package in question gets pinned at unstable and stays there until you intervene, that is until you reinstall it withthout a -t option at which point it would return to the default level. Chris -- C. Hurschler
