On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 04:14:31AM -0800, Rodney wrote: >On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 12:00:10 +0100, Magnus Therning wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 10:11:53AM +0000, John Halton wrote: >>>On 03/02/06, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >[edit-delete] >>>> >>>My understanding was that if you have more than two repositories then it >>>is better to use pinning, using /etc/apt/preferences, so you can set >>>different priorities for each of the non-default releases. >> >> AFAIK setting APT::Default-Release is an easier way than pinning. >> Personally I avoid pinning as far as possible... >> >>>The exact configuration then depends on which of the three repositories >>>you want to prioritise - i.e. do you want to track stable but having >>>testing/unstable packages available, or do you want to track testing or >>>unstable. >> >> The APT::Default-Release does that too. E.g. I have testing, unstable and >> experimental in my APT source.list. With "APT::Default-Release >> "unstable";" I get the following >> >> % apt-cache policy alsa-utils >> alsa-utils: >> Installed: (none) >> Candidate: 1.0.10-1 >> Version table: >> 1.0.10+1.0.11rc2-1 0 >> 1 http://ftp.uk.debian.org experimental/main Packages >> 1.0.10-1 0 >> 500 http://ftp.uk.debian.org testing/main Packages >> 990 http://ftp.uk.debian.org unstable/main Packages >> >> So "apt-get install alsa-utils" will install the package from unstable, >> while experimental and testing is available. I need pinning to keep a >> package in testing from being upgraded to unstable though. >> > >Isn't the last line you wrote one of the things poster John H. was >writing about when suggested pining was better for a mixed system? If >you need to pin anything, you need to understand how to pin, so why >"avoid pining as much as possibble"? I know pining can be confusing >because I am new at this myself but learning how to hold packages with >pinning and set priorities for upgrade of certain packages seems to me >to be important for someone running a mixed system, which is generally >considered an advanced concept. I'm not condeming your answer, just >trying to understand.
From John H's post: My understanding was that if you have more than two repositories then it is better to use pinning, using /etc/apt/preferences, so you can set different priorities for each of the non-default releases. I understood that as "use pinning to set priorities when you have more than two repositories". I thing that statement isn't very good. I think APT::Default-Release is easier to use to pick the preferred release and pinning is only necessary to control individual packages' upgrade policy. The output from 'apt-cache policy' was meant to show that "apt does the right thing" when APT::Default-Release is set. /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://therning.org/magnus Software is not manufactured, it is something you write and publish. Keep Europe free from software patents, we do not want censorship by patent law on written works. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. -- Albert Einstein
pgptNbkJL1xET.pgp
Description: PGP signature
