On 04.04.2023 00:12, Thomas Schweikle wrote:
does not seen to work at all, since the 4.1-2 package has priority 500
but if pinning would work it should have 1000. What is wrong here?
It works for me.
Without pinning:
$ apt-cache policy nvidia-driver
nvidia-driver:
Installed: 470.161.03
u.com/ubuntu kinetic/universe amd64
> Packages
> 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
>
> does not seen to work at all, since the 4.1-2 package has priority 500
> but if pinning would work it should have 1000. What is wrong here?
I do not have a kinetic system at hand, but cou
On 03/04/2023 20:12, Thomas Schweikle wrote:
does not seen to work at all, since the 4.1-2 package has priority 500
but if pinning would work it should have 1000. What is wrong here?
Hi Thomas,
I don't remember how exactly pinning reads your preferences file, it's
been a while s
andbook1/apps/ubuntu jammy/main
amd64 Packages
*** 4.1-2 500
500 http://de.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu kinetic/universe amd64
Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
does not seen to work at all, since the 4.1-2 package has priority 500
but if pinning would work it should have 1000
On Sb, 27 nov 21, 10:57:37, Tim Woodall wrote:
>
> Also, I don't know if this pin is working with a=stable or it's actually
> not doing anything useful any more. I cannot find anything that tells me
> how the Pin: line actually matches.
For diagnosing pinning `apt po
Were a new buster build to happen ([ … ]) I'd want my local version
to stay until I patch the new version" which appears to contradict
the above.
My epoch: method was in answer to your original post, and not the
discussion of pinning and upstream-version-debian-revisions that
has followed. I illustrated what epochs can do, and I'll leave it
at that, because it's unsuitable for what you now appear to need.
Cheers,
David.
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021, The Wanderer wrote:
Is there a reason you're using '+' as your separator?
Yes - because, for example, squid I'm building with extra settings so I
want my version to be higher than the corresponding buster/bullseye
version. There is no backporting involved.
I think this l
On 2021-11-29 at 11:08, Tim Woodall wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021, David Wright wrote:
>
>> I envisaged that what you wanted was:
>>
>> Debian ver. Task Your ver.Installed (highest) ver.
>> 1.0 1.0
>> 1.0 ? 1.0
>> 1.0
On Sun, 28 Nov 2021, David Wright wrote:
I envisaged that what you wanted was:
Debian ver. Task Your ver.Installed (highest) ver.
1.0 1.0
1.0 ? 1.0
1.0 patch 1.0
1.0 ? 5:1.0
On Sun 28 Nov 2021 at 07:13:09 (+), Tim Woodall wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2021, David Wright wrote:
> > On Sat 27 Nov 2021 at 19:07:14 (+), Tim Woodall wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, I don't think I can do this with a generic pin. Maybe pinning
> > > origin
Hi,
The Wanderer wrote:
> an epoch as high as 9:
> ii wodim
> 9:1.1.11-3.2
Looks like interesting history.
https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/c/cdrkit/changelog-91.1.11-3.2
(when read backwards) shows repeated occasions of what
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfiel
On 2021-11-28 at 00:03, David Wright wrote:
> Epochs are unaffected by any such considerations: they override the
> whole versioning system. BTW I can't recall seeing an official Debian
> epoch as high as 2: though someone will probably correct me.
Oh, it certainly happens. Even just on my own sy
On Sat, 27 Nov 2021, David Wright wrote:
On Sat 27 Nov 2021 at 19:07:14 (+), Tim Woodall wrote:
Yes, I don't think I can do this with a generic pin. Maybe pinning
origin "" to -100 might work - not sure if that will uninstall or
downgrade (I'll experiment). I think add
x27;ve backported make from bullseye to buster.
> > > So on my buster systems I have:
> > > make/oldstable,now 4.3-4.1+tjw10r1 amd64 [installed]
> > >
> > > while once I've upgraded to bullseye I want to "downgrade" from my
> > > backpor
ake 4.3-4.1 and then continue to track bullseye.
You will need a priority over 1000.
I don't recommend this, but you get to keep all the pieces.
Yes, I don't think I can do this with a generic pin. Maybe pinning
origin "" to -100 might work - not sure if that will uninstall or
Tim Woodall wrote:
> Can anyone tell me exactly what this Pin line I have actually does - or
> even better point me to a webpage that has more than "if you want to do
> this use this" type of example?
>
> (FTAOD I know that this isn't right and is inconsistent but before I
> start changing it I w
) I'd want my local version to stay until I patch the new version.
This pin has worked successfully for me throughout buster's lifetime -
however when looking at it now to correct that a=stable I noticed that
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/apt-howto/ch-apt-get.en.html suggests
that
On Jo, 16 ian 20, 10:15:59, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 05:09:36PM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > Well, 'apt upgrade' is not allowed to install new packages anyway,
>
> Actually, it is. You're thinking of apt-get.
Ugh, right. Thanks for the correction.
Kind regards,
Andrei
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 05:09:36PM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> Well, 'apt upgrade' is not allowed to install new packages anyway,
Actually, it is. You're thinking of apt-get.
On Jo, 16 ian 20, 08:22:53, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2020-01-16 at 04:38, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >
> > This should work with the same technique used for backports: pin
> > unstable to priority 100 (the same priority as installed packages).
> >
> > New packages must be installed with '-t sid', a
On 2020-01-16 at 04:38, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 15 ian 20, 12:12:53, Samuel Henrique wrote:
>
>> Hello people,
>>
>> These days I'm wondering what's the correct approach to have the
>> following behaviour:
>>
>> * Using Testing
>> * Always install firefox (or some other packages) and its
On Mi, 15 ian 20, 12:12:53, Samuel Henrique wrote:
> Hello people,
>
> These days I'm wondering what's the correct approach to have the
> following behaviour:
>
> * Using Testing
> * Always install firefox (or some other packages) and its deps from the
> unstable repository
> * Keep downloading u
nstall anything else from unstable unless the I'm using "apt -t
sid install"
I've tried somethings in the past, like using apt pinning to set everything
from unstable to -1, and firefox to something else, but it doesn't seems to
work exactly how I intended to.
I don't r
100
Remember that apt will always prefer a newer version, unless the pinning
says otherwise. In your case the default priority of 500 for unstable
and testing will keep your system on unstable.
Short version: the pinning above is not necessary if you just want to
track unstable.
> I
So I've got a test box that I have sid installed on and the following in my
/etc/apt/preferences
Package: *
Pin: release a=unstable
Pin-Priority: 1000
Package: *
Pin: release a=testing
Pin-Priority: 100
I also have these two packages installed:
sapt-listbugs apt-listchanges
I went to install li
On Fri 03 May 2019 at 23:09:58 (+0200), Emanuel Berg wrote:
> tomas wrote:
>
> >> That's some heavy parsing, only I don't get
> >> it to work. I get "no such file or directory:
> >> " from the first, apt-cache-dump invocation.
> >
> > This is because it's spelt "apt-cache dump",
> > I guess ;-)
>
tomas wrote:
>> That's some heavy parsing, only I don't get
>> it to work. I get "no such file or directory:
>> " from the first, apt-cache-dump invocation.
>
> This is because it's spelt "apt-cache dump",
> I guess ;-)
No, then it says "zsh: command not found:" :)
--
underground experts united
On Fri 03 May 2019 at 03:46:50 (+0200), Emanuel Berg wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
>
> > $ apt-cache dump | grep -A 2 '^Package:' | grep -B 2 '^ File:' | sed -e
> > 'N;N;s/\n/ /g;s/ \+/ /g;N' | grep -v '^--' | sort >> "$Unique1"
> > $ dpkg-query -W -f '^Package: ${Package} \n' | grep --file=- "$Un
On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 03:46:50AM +0200, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
>
> > $ dpkg-query -W -f '^Package: ${Package} \n' | grep --file=- "$Unique1" |
> > sort
> Also I don't understand where the argument
> goes? Where is ${Package} defined, even tho it
> didn't (for me) even get th
On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 03:30:13AM +0200, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Optimally I'd like it like this:
>
> $ from-what-release w3m-el-snapshot
> testing
The problem here is the packaging system does not KNOW from which source
a package came, after it is installed.
The best you can do is try to
On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 03:46:50AM +0200, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
>
> > $ apt-cache dump | grep -A 2 '^Package:' | grep -B 2 '^ File:' | sed -e
> > 'N;N;s/\n/ /g;s/ \+/ /g;N' | grep -v '^--' | sort >> "$Unique1"
> > $ dpkg-query -W -f '^Package: ${Package} \n' | grep --file=- "$
Toni Mas wrote:
> apt-show-versions script are useful as well.
> apt-show-versions is a package itself.
It sure is and it sure is exactly what I'm
looking for with no need to parse the output to
get it exactly to the point:
$ apt-show-versions w3m-el-snapshot
w3m-el-snapshot:all/testing 1.4.632+
One can also do it like this:
$ aptitude versions w3m-el-snapshot
Package w3m-el-snapshot:
p 1.4.569+0.20170110-1 stable 500
i 1.4.632+0.20181112-2 testing 800
--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Francisco M Neto wrote:
>> But is there a way to find out/confirm from
>> which release is a certain pack?
>
> You're looking for apt-cache policy. [...]
>
> $ apt-cache policy gnome-core
> gnome-core:
> Installed: 1:3.30+1
> Candidate: 1:3.30+1
> Version table:
> *** 1:3.30+1 900
>
David Wright wrote:
> $ apt-cache dump | grep -A 2 '^Package:' | grep -B 2 '^ File:' | sed -e
> 'N;N;s/\n/ /g;s/ \+/ /g;N' | grep -v '^--' | sort >> "$Unique1"
> $ dpkg-query -W -f '^Package: ${Package} \n' | grep --file=- "$Unique1" | sort
That's some heavy parsing, only I don't get it
to work.
Alexander V. Makartsev wrote:
> You can check what branches have the package
> you want with "rmadison" command.
>
> Example:
> $ sudo apt install devscripts
> $ rmadison linux-image-amd64
> linux-image-amd64 | 3.16+63+deb8u2 | oldstable | amd64, i386
> linux-image-amd64 | 4.9+80+deb9u7
Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Add file
> /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/99aptitude-list-suite-local
> eith the following one-line content:
>
> aptitude::UI::Package-Display-Format "%c%a%M%S %p %Z %t %v %V";
>
> ...and install and use aptitude in fullscreen
> mode (i.e. start it with no non-option
> arguments).
apt-show-versions script are useful as well.
apt-show-versions is a package itself.
Toni Mas
Missatge de Francisco M Neto del dia dl., 29
d’abr. 2019 a les 23:10:
>
> Greetings!
>
>
> On Mon, 2019-04-29 at 05:30 +0200, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> > But is there a way to find out/confirm from
> > whic
Greetings!
On Mon, 2019-04-29 at 05:30 +0200, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> But is there a way to find out/confirm from
> which release is a certain pack?
You're looking for apt-cache policy.
Example:
==
$ apt-cache policy gnome-core
gnome-core:
Installed: 1
On Mon 29 Apr 2019 at 05:30:30 (+0200), Emanuel Berg wrote:
> With apt pinning [1], in /etc/apt/preferences ,
> I have learned that one can have certain packs
> from another release than the rest of the
> system, seemlessly (?) with apt-get and the
> other tools, for example like th
On 29.04.2019 10:35, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Emanuel Berg (2019-04-29 05:30:30)
>> With apt pinning [1], in /etc/apt/preferences ,
>> I have learned that one can have certain packs
>> from another release than the rest of the
>> system, seemlessly (?) with apt
Quoting Emanuel Berg (2019-04-29 05:30:30)
> With apt pinning [1], in /etc/apt/preferences ,
> I have learned that one can have certain packs
> from another release than the rest of the
> system, seemlessly (?) with apt-get and the
> other tools, for example like this for
&g
With apt pinning [1], in /etc/apt/preferences ,
I have learned that one can have certain packs
from another release than the rest of the
system, seemlessly (?) with apt-get and the
other tools, for example like this for
w3m-el-snapshot:
Package: *
Pin: release a=testing
Pin-Priority
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 04:23:12AM -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> Jimmy Johnson composed on 2017-08-31 22:03 (UTC-0700):
>
> > Felix Miata wrote:
[...]
> > #dpkg-hold 'package-name'
> > #dpkg-unhold 'package-name'
>
> dpkg hold
> dpkg-hold
Jimmy Johnson composed on 2017-08-31 22:03 (UTC-0700):
> Felix Miata wrote:
>> Over an hour I've been searching in vain, apparently using broken Google-fu,
>> for
>> something using examples to explain how to prevent unwanted package(s) from
>> being installed
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 03:46:17PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> I realize that Greg, but debian's support for armhf for unusual
> applications that require a realtime environment, is at its finest, an
> afterthought and discarded. We linuxcnc runners are used to it. So we
> build our own kernel
On Thursday 19 April 2018 14:59:04 Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 02:47:05PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Hijacking a thread here, but it reads like I might be reading an
> > expert.
> >
> > "Pinning" is an interesting subject Roberto, inter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 02:59:04PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 02:47:05PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Hijacking a thread here, but it reads like I might be reading an expert.
> >
> > "Pinning&
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 02:47:05PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Hijacking a thread here, but it reads like I might be reading an expert.
>
> "Pinning" is an interesting subject Roberto, interesting because the info
> on how to do it is generally skipped over, or onl
On 02/06/2018 02:16 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
On 2018-02-06 at 07:52, Adam Cecile wrote:
On 02/06/2018 01:46 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
Pin: version 1.3.*, release o=packages.le-vert.net
Hello,
Thanks for the answer, sadly it's not working:
mesos:
Installed: 1.3.1-1+Debian-stretch-9.1
C
On 2018-02-06 at 07:52, Adam Cecile wrote:
> On 02/06/2018 01:46 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> Pin: version 1.3.*, release o=packages.le-vert.net
>
> Hello,
>
> Thanks for the answer, sadly it's not working:
>
> mesos:
>Installed: 1.3.1-1+Debian-stretch-9.1
>Candidate: 1.4.1-1+Debian-str
On 02/06/2018 01:46 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
Pin: version 1.3.*, release o=packages.le-vert.net
Hello,
Thanks for the answer, sadly it's not working:
mesos:
Installed: 1.3.1-1+Debian-stretch-9.1
Candidate: 1.4.1-1+Debian-stretch-9.1
On 2018-02-06 at 03:01, Adam Cecile wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to do something like this:
>
> Package: mesos
> Pin: version 1.3.*
> Pin: release o=packages.le-vert.net
> Pin-Priority: 1000
>
> But sadly the last "Pin:" line overrides the previous one.
Try:
Package: mesos
Pin: version 1.3.*,
Hello,
I'd like to do something like this:
Package: mesos
Pin: version 1.3.*
Pin: release o=packages.le-vert.net
Pin-Priority: 1000
But sadly the last "Pin:" line overrides the previous one.
My problem here is that I'd like the version
"1.3.1-1+Debian-stretch-9.1" to be the candidate one. De
On 08/30/2017 11:08 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
Over an hour I've been searching in vain, apparently using broken Google-fu, for
something using examples to explain how to prevent unwanted package(s) from
being installed via pinning when apt-mark's hold is being disregarded. Anyone
famili
gle-fu, for
>>>> something using examples to explain how to prevent unwanted package(s)
>>>> from
>>>> being installed via pinning when apt-mark's hold is being disregarded.
>>>> Anyone
>>>> familiar with an URL that would do this?
>
prevent unwanted package(s)
>>> from
>>> being installed via pinning when apt-mark's hold is being disregarded.
>>> Anyone
>>> familiar with an URL that would do this?
>
>>> In openSUSE, it's a simple process:
>
>>> zypper al
Dejan Jocic composed on 2017-08-31 08:51 (UTC+0200):
> Felix Miata wrote:
>> Over an hour I've been searching in vain, apparently using broken Google-fu,
>> for
>> something using examples to explain how to prevent unwanted package(s) from
>> being installed via
On 31-08-17, Dejan Jocic wrote:
> On 31-08-17, Felix Miata wrote:
> > Over an hour I've been searching in vain, apparently using broken
> > Google-fu, for
> > something using examples to explain how to prevent unwanted package(s) from
> > being installed via pinni
On 31-08-17, Felix Miata wrote:
> Over an hour I've been searching in vain, apparently using broken Google-fu,
> for
> something using examples to explain how to prevent unwanted package(s) from
> being installed via pinning when apt-mark's hold is being disregarded. Anyone
Over an hour I've been searching in vain, apparently using broken Google-fu, for
something using examples to explain how to prevent unwanted package(s) from
being installed via pinning when apt-mark's hold is being disregarded. Anyone
familiar with an URL that would do this?
In openSU
Sorry, just found the solution by specifying the problematic version and
giving negative priority (instead of forcing downgrade).
Package: linphone*
Version: 3.6.1-2.6
Pin: release n=stretch
Pin-Priority: -10
On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Francesco Montanari wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am on Stretch
Hi,
I am on Stretch and the default linphone version is unusable for me (I got
reported bugs #743494). However Jessie's version works, so I pinned it in
/etc/apt/preferences:
Package: linphone*
Pin: release n=jessie
Pin-Priority: 1001
However, the version is quite old (e.g. lacks of ZRTP support
I have a 3rd Party Repository added to apt sources, pinned via apt preferences
so that
Stable = 800, Testing = -1
apt-cache policy shows that this is the case.
Several months of usage has also confirmed that it is working as intended.
Recently, I ran apt-get update while my network connection wa
Hi,
Debian Wheeze onwards comes with a default installation of Dovecot 2. An
upgrade from Squeeze to Wheezy would upgrade Dovecot 1.2 -> 2.2.
When I upgrade a Squeeze server to Wheezy, how could I keep Dovecot 1.2? Could
I by Pinning the package?
Many thanks, Soph.
P.S I have pos
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Martin Read wrote:
> On 20/11/15 15:07, Kynn Jones wrote:
>>
>> Also, I set the contents of my `/etc/apt/preferences` file to this
>> (the file was empty before):
>>
>> Package: *
>>Pin: release a=stable
>
>
> Looking at the Debian wiki's page on APT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 04:20:29PM +, Martin Read wrote:
[...]
> Just so you know, this is a discouraged[2] (and completely
> unsupported) configuration.
> [2] https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian#Don.27t_make_a_FrankenDebian
This is general
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:07:49AM -0500, Kynn Jones wrote:
OK, I start with my 100% `stable` (`jessie`) system up-to-date. IOW,
after `apt-get update`, `apt-get upgrade` reports that there are no
candidates for upgrading:
% sudo apt-get upgrade Reading package lists... Done Building
d
On 20/11/15 15:07, Kynn Jones wrote:
Also, I set the contents of my `/etc/apt/preferences` file to this
(the file was empty before):
Package: *
Pin: release a=stable
Looking at the Debian wiki's page on APT preferences[1] and comparing to
your file, I notice that you haven't speci
OK, I start with my 100% `stable` (`jessie`) system up-to-date. IOW,
after `apt-get update`, `apt-get upgrade` reports that there are no
candidates for upgrading:
% sudo apt-get upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Ca
2.2.16-5 0
500 http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/ stable/main amd64 Packages
>From that point of view it should keep cinnamon.
Here are my pinning values:
37# cat 99_debian
Package: *
Pin: release a=stable,l=debian
Pin-Priority: 500
Package: *
Pin: release o=Debian,l=Debian
blem is not
somewhere in the configuration of my desktop machine. So I added
jessie-backports to the laptop's sources.list and got more or less the
same result, up-to-date when online, a bunch of pending upgrades when
offline.
So finally I went back to my desktop machine and tried to add the debian
testi
lashplugin-nonfree
or is it so, that when package is found only in one repo, that will be used?
Also there is no pinning set by default though backports instructions say:
http://backports.debian.org/Instructions/
"All backports are deactivated by default (i.e. the packages
Malte Forkel writes:
> Is there any support for pinning by architecture?
If you're speaking about libraries, you can write something like this:
Package: libgl1-mesa-glx
Pin: release n=wheezy
Pin-priority: 500
Package: libgl1-mesa-dri
Pin: release n=wheezy
Pin-
Am 19.03.2014 00:39, schrieb John D. Hendrickson and Sara Darnell:
> "With the current version, apt would always try to install the newest
> version of a package which usually comes from unstable or testing -
> this could lead to a messed-up system. With apt-pinning, we can
> def
Hi,
Is there any support for pinning by architecture? I've only found bug
report #687255 [1].
Thanks,
Malte
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=687255
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". T
On 10/10/13 22:06, Dmitrii Kashin wrote:
> berenger.mo...@neutralite.org writes:
>
>> In the same priority range, the package which will be installed is the
>> one with the highest priority, so it is fine to have one set of
>> package with 500 ( or I could take 600 or any other value ) for low
>>
On Sun, 2013-12-29 at 00:59 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:25:25PM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > Sid is called "unstable" because it is a rolling release and you get
> > package updates 4 times per day.
>
> Vice versa for Wheezy.
No updates, but 4 times unstable?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:25:25PM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> Sid is called "unstable" because it is a rolling release and you get
> package updates 4 times per day.
Vice versa for Wheezy.
--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, an
On Sat, 2013-12-28 at 00:01 +, Tom H wrote:
> If you're booted into Arch, you can use systemd-nspawn and let it set
> up the chroot for you.
That's interesting, a few seconds learning curve wasn't very successful,
but I at least was able to run apt-get update (not finished because the
access t
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-12-27 at 14:25 +0400, Reco wrote:
>>
>> chroot
>
> :)
>
> I did not think about this possibility, but I guess I wait, reboot later
> and continue then.
If you're booted into Arch, you can use systemd-nspawn and let it set
up the
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-12-27 at 10:12 +, Tom H wrote:
>> (One of the steps of the release notes always is to disable pinning
>> when upgrading.)
> IIUC forcing a downgrade doesn't work?
I don't follow why you
On Fri, 2013-12-27 at 23:33 +, Brian wrote:
> On Sat 28 Dec 2013 at 00:08:54 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>
> > When I searched the web for the errors I found a bugreport for unstable,
> > building another package failed too, caused by at least on of the errors
> > I got too.
> >
> > The good n
On Sat 28 Dec 2013 at 00:08:54 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> When I searched the web for the errors I found a bugreport for unstable,
> building another package failed too, caused by at least on of the errors
> I got too.
>
> The good news, appmenugen does generate a good menu to start editing,
>
On Fri, 2013-12-27 at 23:20 +, Tom H wrote:
> perhaps you could pin the packages that you want to cherry-pick from
> testing or unstable rather than change the install priority of all
> packages in the repositories
Thank you,
I consider this too. At the moment I _backup_ and experiment.
Rega
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Reco wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 10:12:55 +
> Tom H wrote:
>>
>> "apt-get dist-upgrade" will not upgrade stable to testing if the
>> pinning settings don't allow it, which AFAIR should be the case with
>> Ralph&#
Hi,
I only did install the needed dev packages and dependencies from
unstable.
Building jwmtools did work for those apps:
rocketmouse@debi386:/usr/src/jwmtools$ dpkg -L jwmtools | grep bin/
/opt/jwmtools/0.1/bin/slock
/opt/jwmtools/0.1/bin/sysmonitor
/opt/jwmtools/0.1/bin/traybattery
/opt/jwmtoo
On Fri, 2013-12-27, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> APT::Default-Release "wheezy";
Perhaps the pinning does work as it is [1], but I'll care about your
hints.
> Sid [...] updates [...] Of course, you are not forced to install them,
> but waiting too much (say longer than a
On Vi, 27 dec 13, 11:28:30, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>
> How stable is "Debian unstable"? Perhaps making a backup, disabling
> pinning and dist-upgrading is the easiest solution, OTOH I would prefer
> to stay with as much from "stable" as possible.
It doesn't c
On Vi, 27 dec 13, 11:07:13, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>
> Package: *
> Pin: release n=wheezy
> Pin-Priority: 400
>
> Package: *
> Pin: release n=wheezy-backports
> Pin-Priority: 300
This is a bad idea, especially in combination with below priorities.
Backports is special because there is no guarantee
On Fri, 2013-12-27 at 14:25 +0400, Reco wrote:
> chroot
:)
I did not think about this possibility, but I guess I wait, reboot later
and continue then.
Regards,
Ralf
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@l
e a way to automatically upgarde/downgrade packages to solve this
> >> issue?
> >
> > Upgrade - yes. 'apt-get dist-upgrade' combined with appropriate
> > entries in /etc/apt/sources.list will happily upgrade the whole
> > installation to testing.
>
>
On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 11:17:21 +0100
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> I can't reboot now
Why bother with rebooting? Mount Debian root (and /var) filesystem
somewhere, don't forget bind mount /proc, chroot into it, do the needed
thing.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with
Hi.
On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 11:07:13 +0100
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-12-27 at 14:00 +0400, Reco wrote:
> > PS It would help if you post the contents of:
> > /etc/apt/sources.list (and all files from /etc/apt/sources.list.d)
> > /etc/apt/preferences (and all files from /etc/apt/preferences.
;> there a way to automatically upgarde/downgrade packages to solve this
> >> issue?
> >
> > Upgrade - yes. 'apt-get dist-upgrade' combined with appropriate
> > entries in /etc/apt/sources.list will happily upgrade the whole
> > installation to testing.
>
On Fri, 2013-12-27 at 12:04 +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> 'apt-cache policy'
It's as expected by the /etc/apt/preferences I posted, anything else has
got the default value, IOW upgrade stuff has a priority of 500. I can't
reboot now, so not post the output of 'apt-cache policy' and 'apt-cache
pol
e?
>
> Upgrade - yes. 'apt-get dist-upgrade' combined with appropriate
> entries in /etc/apt/sources.list will happily upgrade the whole
> installation to testing.
"apt-get dist-upgrade" will not upgrade stable to testing if the
pinning settings don't allow it,
On Fri, 2013-12-27 at 14:00 +0400, Reco wrote:
> PS It would help if you post the contents of:
> /etc/apt/sources.list (and all files from /etc/apt/sources.list.d)
> /etc/apt/preferences (and all files from /etc/apt/preferences.d).
[rocketmouse@archlinux ~]$ cat /mnt/debi386/etc/apt/sources.list
#
rade packages to solve this
> issue? Apt pinning seemingly is a completely useless thing. I read about
> such issues with Debian on Linux audio users mailing list many times.
APT pinning is a very powerful tool. Just because you don't know how to
use it doesn't mean it's useless.
&
ropriate
entries in /etc/apt/sources.list will happily upgrade the whole
installation to testing.
Downgrade - no. Best thing you can probably do is
apt-get install libgtk2.0-0=2.24.10-2
on any package which does not belong to stable.
> Apt pinning seemingly is a completely useless thing. I re
1 - 100 of 412 matches
Mail list logo
