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 policy` (with or without ,
depe
On Mon 29 Nov 2021 at 17:33:35 (+), Tim Woodall wrote:
> 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 b
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 "" to -100 might work - not sure if that
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 adding explicit pins to
On Sat 27 Nov 2021 at 19:07:14 (+), Tim Woodall wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2021, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > 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"
On Sat, 27 Nov 2021, Dan Ritter wrote:
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
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
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
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 this for
> w3m-el-
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-get and the
>> other tools,
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
> w3m-el-snapshot:
>
>
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
>>
berenger.mo...@neutralite.org writes:
> Le 10.10.2013 23:06, Dmitrii Kashin a écrit :
>> 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
Le 10.10.2013 23:06, Dmitrii Kashin a écrit :
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
prior
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
> priority, and the other at 900 ( or 800 or... ),
Le 09.10.2013 19:28, Dmitrii Kashin a écrit :
berenger.mo...@neutralite.org writes:
Since I had to reinstall from my last kernel error, I decided to
stay
with stable on that computer, but I need some softwares in less
outdated versions, like development libraries or i3 ( this one is
not
a ne
berenger.mo...@neutralite.org writes:
> Since I had to reinstall from my last kernel error, I decided to stay
> with stable on that computer, but I need some softwares in less
> outdated versions, like development libraries or i3 ( this one is not
> a need but a question of comfort, I admit ), so
Le 09.10.2013 11:17, Marko Randjelovic a écrit :
On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 00:12:46 +0200
berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
Le 08.10.2013 22:42, Sven Joachim a écrit :
> On 2013-10-08 19:06 +0200, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
>
>> Since I had to reinstall from my last kernel error, I d
On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 00:12:46 +0200
berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
>
>
> Le 08.10.2013 22:42, Sven Joachim a écrit :
> > On 2013-10-08 19:06 +0200, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
> >
> >> Since I had to reinstall from my last kernel error, I decided to
> >> stay
> >> with stable on t
Le 08.10.2013 22:42, Sven Joachim a écrit :
On 2013-10-08 19:06 +0200, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
Since I had to reinstall from my last kernel error, I decided to
stay
with stable on that computer, but I need some softwares in less
outdated versions, like development libraries or i
On 2013-10-08 19:06 +0200, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
> Since I had to reinstall from my last kernel error, I decided to stay
> with stable on that computer, but I need some softwares in less
> outdated versions, like development libraries or i3 ( this one is not
> a need but a question
On 21.06.2013 15:04, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> I think we didn't understand priorities correctly. Let's see again what
> the fine manual (apt_preferences(5)) says:
>
> […]
> As per above output you have 6:9.3-1 installed, which is more recent
> than 6:0.8.6-1. Because of this apt wants to jump dir
On Jo, 20 iun 13, 20:13:06, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Ma, 18 iun 13, 18:00:37, Roland Hieber wrote:
>
> > But nevertheless, apt still assigns a prio of 500:
Actually it doesn't, 500 is the priority of the source, the package
itself has 250 (the number behind the version).
> > $ apt-cache poli
Hi,
Dňa 20.06.2013 19:13 Andrei POPESCU wrote / napísal(a):
> On Ma, 18 iun 13, 18:00:37, Roland Hieber wrote:
>> My preferences look like this:
>>
>> $ cat /etc/apt/preferences.d/*.pref
>> Package: libavdevice53
>> Pin: release o=Unofficial Multimedia Packages
>> Pin-Priority: 250
>>
I was both
On Ma, 18 iun 13, 18:00:37, Roland Hieber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I want to pin the libav* packages from deb-multimedia so they get a
> lower priority than the libav packages in the default Debian repos.
>
> My sources.list looks like this:
>
> $ cat /etc/apt/sources.list /etc/apt/sources.list.d/*list
On 18.07.2012 11:36, Mika Suomalainen wrote:
I think that you should replace "n=squeeze" with "a=squeeze" in
/etc/apt/preferences.d/php.
Hi Mika,
according to apt-cache policy the "n" is fine:
500 http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates/main amd64 Packages
release v=6.0,o=Debian,a=
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 18.07.2012 11:31, Denis Witt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a machine with Wheezy installed, unfortunately I can't use
> PHP5.4 due to a third party script which isn't compatible yet.
>
> So I added the Squeeze-Sources in my apt sources.list and
> inst
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:36:07 +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:01:12 +, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:23:25 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>
>>> On Ma, 27 mar 12, 12:07:08, Ramon Hofer wrote:
Thanks for the explanation!
So why didn't they "just"
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:01:12 +, Ramon Hofer wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:23:25 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
>> On Ma, 27 mar 12, 12:07:08, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the explanation!
>>> So why didn't they "just" update the version that won't receive any
>>> updates?
>>
>> T
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:23:25 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Ma, 27 mar 12, 12:07:08, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the explanation!
>> So why didn't they "just" update the version that won't receive any
>> updates?
>
> The new version changed ABI[1], which means all modules compiled aga
On Ma, 27 mar 12, 12:07:08, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>
> Thanks for the explanation!
> So why didn't they "just" update the version that won't receive any
> updates?
The new version changed ABI[1], which means all modules compiled against
bpo.1 need to be recompiled for bpo.2.
[1] http://en.wikipedi
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:00:55 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Ma, 27 mar 12, 10:45:27, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>>
>> I was just thinking if it would be better to switch from linux-
>> image-3.2.0-0.bpo.1-686-pae on another machine to linux-
>> image-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-686-pae?
>> But maybe the difference
On Ma, 27 mar 12, 10:45:27, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>
> I was just thinking if it would be better to switch from linux-
> image-3.2.0-0.bpo.1-686-pae on another machine to linux-
> image-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-686-pae?
> But maybe the difference isn't immense so I probably shouldn't change the
> running system
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:40:47 +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:59:42 +, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:07:41 +, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> Btw what's the difference between linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.1-686-pae and
>> linux-image-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-686-pae and why are bot
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:59:42 +, Ramon Hofer wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:07:41 +, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
>> Wow... no need to re-install :-), just be sure about the steps you're
>> doing. Whether in doubt, launch aptitude and try from there, it usually
>> provides insightful informati
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:07:41 +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 13:14:47 +, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:55:13 +, Camaleón wrote:
>
What do you think it would be better to completely go with testing.
>>>
>>> Testing is currently quite stable but there a
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:10:08 -0400, Rob Owens wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:15:10PM +, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> I'm trying to put the MythTV PVR XBMC version on my Shuttle box. I need
>> a newer alsa version than the one from Squeeze because the stable
>> version doesn't see t
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:15:10PM +, Ramon Hofer wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I'm trying to put the MythTV PVR XBMC version on my Shuttle box.
> I need a newer alsa version than the one from Squeeze because the stable
> version doesn't see the soundcard. So I wanted to install alsa from
> testing.
>
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:46:27 +, Ramon Hofer wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:15:10 +, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>
>> So I thought I'd go with Stable, the kernel from backports and alsa
>> from testing.
>> Unfortunately this doesn't work. I suppose my problem are wrong apt-
>> preferences numbers
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:15:10 +, Ramon Hofer wrote:
> So I thought I'd go with Stable, the kernel from backports and alsa from
> testing.
> Unfortunately this doesn't work. I suppose my problem are wrong apt-
> preferences numbers or something like this.
Could it be that it's not possible to h
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 13:14:47 +, Ramon Hofer wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:55:13 +, Camaleón wrote:
>>> What do you think it would be better to completely go with testing.
>>
>> Testing is currently quite stable but there are significant differences
>> between wheezy and squeeze, like
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:55:13 +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:15:10 +, Ramon Hofer wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to put the MythTV PVR XBMC version on my Shuttle box. I need
>> a newer alsa version than the one from Squeeze because the stable
>> version doesn't see the soundcard. So I
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:15:10 +, Ramon Hofer wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I'm trying to put the MythTV PVR XBMC version on my Shuttle box. I need
> a newer alsa version than the one from Squeeze because the stable
> version doesn't see the soundcard. So I wanted to install alsa from
> testing.
> And be
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 03:35:13PM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> Looks broken to me, as well. Perhaps this is worth a bug report? At the very
Yeah, that's next. I was hoping I was missing something.
> Nothing in /etc/apt/preferences.d? What's the output of (apt-cache policy |
> awk
On 2011-03-30 15:00:45 John Bazik wrote:
>My local archive is oldstable (same as lenny), and I have no target
>release defined.
>
>sources.list:
> deb http://mymirror/debian lenny main contrib non-free
> deb http://mymirror/debian-security lenny/updates main contrib non-free
> deb http://mymi
Thank You for Your time and answer, Boyd:
> > 500 http://security.debian.org testing/updates/contrib
> >Packages release
> >v=None,o=Debian,a=testing,l=Debian-Security,c=contrib
> > origin security.debian.org
> >...
> >
> >too, has the same "a" field. Or should I specify all the fields -
> >li
In <4cfe2cfc.cc7e0e0a.1d1d.4...@mx.google.com>, Sthu Deus wrote:
>Thank You for Your time and answer, Boyd:
>> I use the fields shown by (apt-cache policy) for each repository for
>> my pinning. These values ultimately come from the Release file.
>> You'll have a local copy in /var/lib/apt/lists.
Thank You for Your time and answer, Boyd:
> I use the fields shown by (apt-cache policy) for each repository for
> my pinning. These values ultimately come from the Release file.
> You'll have a local copy in /var/lib/apt/lists. This local copy is
> fetched / updated each time you run aptitude u
In <4cfdd943.cc7e0e0a.0f16.2...@mx.google.com>, Sthu Deus wrote:
>I have a bunch of repos in my apt.conf, they all have some pinning that
>I can see w/
>
>apt-cache policy
>
>Manually, I have set (in the apt preferences file) only for few of
>them, but they are all set up (I mean pinning).
They al
> Andrei Popescu :
>On Mi, 02 iun 10, 12:29:14, Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote:
>>
>> I expect the "2.5.5-0.blueline.0" postfix to be candidate, but
>> $ apt-cache policy postfix
>> Installé : (aucun)
>> Candidat : 2.5.5-1.1
>>Table de version :
>> 2.5.5-1.1 0
>>100 http
On Mi, 02 iun 10, 12:29:14, Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote:
>
> I expect the "2.5.5-0.blueline.0" postfix to be candidate, but
> $ apt-cache policy postfix
> Installé : (aucun)
> Candidat : 2.5.5-1.1
>Table de version :
> 2.5.5-1.1 0
>100 http://mirror.malagasy.com lenny/
>Brian C wrote:
> Adrian Zaugg wrote on Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:09:30 -0800
>
>> PS: If you see the error:
>>
>> relocation error: /usr/lib/libkrb5.so.3: symbol krb5_hmac, version
>> k5crypto_3_MIT not defined in file libk5crypto.so.3 with link time reference
>>
>> you were hit by the above mentioned
Adrian Zaugg wrote on Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:09:30 -0800
> PS: If you see the error:
>
> relocation error: /usr/lib/libkrb5.so.3: symbol krb5_hmac, version
> k5crypto_3_MIT not defined in file libk5crypto.so.3 with link time reference
>
> you were hit by the above mentioned bug. To solve, do the fo
Packages that rely solely on Java or PHP are not problematic to install
from Testing. That's what I do here. The suggestion for apt_prefernces
Package: *
Pin: release a=testing
Pin-Priority: -1
does unfortunately not hinder dselect from installing libk5crypto3. Any
other suggestions?
Regards, A
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:46:31AM +0100, Adrian Zaugg wrote:
> Dear list
>
> How do I prevent apt in a mixed stable/testing environment from
> installing packages that first time appear in testing using apt-pinning?
As I posted, mixed system comes with negatives.
Let's look at different s
In <4b60d057.9020...@ente.limmat.ch>, Adrian Zaugg wrote:
>How do I prevent apt in a mixed stable/testing environment from
>installing packages that first time appear in testing using apt-pinning?
http://wiki.debian.org/AptPreferences
My setup is mostly stable on my server and (by now) mostly tes
> I wonder if it'll behave any differently if you use aptitude instead of
> apt-get.
I've never used aptitude before, so after your suggestion I gave it a
try and aptitude does behave differently.
What it does is it complains of the same problem as apt, then it
offers to fix it and in every examp
On Sat,12.Dec.09, 22:09:59, Rob Owens wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 09:49:22AM +1100, Gordon Wrigley wrote:
> > Another way to look at this would be to ask...
> >
> > Given two available versions of a package where the higher version has
> > the lower priority, how do I get apt to automatically
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 03:57:27PM +1100, Gordon Wrigley wrote:
> >> Another way to look at this would be to ask...
> >>
> >> Given two available versions of a package where the higher version has
> >> the lower priority, how do I get apt to automatically install the
> >> lower priority one when th
>> Another way to look at this would be to ask...
>>
>> Given two available versions of a package where the higher version has
>> the lower priority, how do I get apt to automatically install the
>> lower priority one when the higher version is required to meet a
>> dependency?
>
> If the higher ve
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 09:49:22AM +1100, Gordon Wrigley wrote:
> Another way to look at this would be to ask...
>
> Given two available versions of a package where the higher version has
> the lower priority, how do I get apt to automatically install the
> lower priority one when the higher versi
Another way to look at this would be to ask...
Given two available versions of a package where the higher version has
the lower priority, how do I get apt to automatically install the
lower priority one when the higher version is required to meet a
dependency?
G
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to deb
> Are you sure that this applies to *all* lucid sections, including
> lucid-updates and lucid-security? I recall reading some blogs that
> indicated that Ubuntu's pinning and default release settings don't
> work exactly like Debian's.
I checked it with apt-cache policy and everything karmic is 5
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 03:28:19PM +1100, Gordon Wrigley wrote:
> I wasn't sure what venue was best to ask this in, so if this is the
> wrong place please direct me to the correct place.
>
> I'm using APT pinning to pull packages from both Ubuntu Karmic(stable)
> and Ubuntu Lucid(testing) but I'm
On Sat,12.Dec.09, 15:28:19, Gordon Wrigley wrote:
> I wasn't sure what venue was best to ask this in, so if this is the
> wrong place please direct me to the correct place.
Hmm, I would suggest ubuntu-users or similar mailing list, but there is
indeed a chance that your question is not Ubuntu sp
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 09:58:23AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Thu,09.Jul.09, 21:50:43, Rob Owens wrote:
> > >
> > That doesn't work either. libmono0 is still installable.
> >
> > apt-cache policy libmono0
> >
> > libmono0:
> > Installed: (none)
> > Candidate: 1.9.1+dfsg-6
> > Packa
On Thu,09.Jul.09, 21:50:43, Rob Owens wrote:
> >
> That doesn't work either. libmono0 is still installable.
>
> apt-cache policy libmono0
>
> libmono0:
> Installed: (none)
> Candidate: 1.9.1+dfsg-6
> Package pin: (not found)
> Version table:
> 2.0.1-6 -1
> 500 http://ftp.us
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 09:51:54AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> [You wrote to me directly instead of the list. I'm putting it back,
> untrimmed, because others could help]
>
That was unintentional. Thanks for forwarding it to the list.
> On Wed,08.Jul.09, 20:20:14, Rob Owens wrote:
> > On Wed
[You wrote to me directly instead of the list. I'm putting it back,
untrimmed, because others could help]
On Wed,08.Jul.09, 20:20:14, Rob Owens wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 01:24:35PM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > On Tue,07.Jul.09, 21:38:57, Rob Owens wrote:
> > >
> > > Since "fakerepo" i
On Tue,07.Jul.09, 21:38:57, Rob Owens wrote:
>
> Since "fakerepo" is not a valid release, "somepackage" is never
> installable. I'm still not sure why my original scheme didn't work.
Sounds kind of hackish. When you have troubles with pinning the output
of 'apt-cache policy ' helps a lot.
Rega
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 09:12:39PM -0400, Rob Owens wrote:
> I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong...
>
> I want to prevent a particular package from ever being installed. In
> /etc/apt/preferences I have:
>
> Package: somepackage
> Pin: version *
> Pin-Priority: -1
>
> But the package can s
H.S. wrote:
> I suppose you meant 'wrong'. What is the correction? How about the
> following?
>
> ~$ cat /etc/apt/preferences
> Package: *
> Pin: release a=testing
> Pin-Priority: 700
>
> Package: *
> Pin: release a=unstable
> Pin-P
Osamu Aoki wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 04:31:32PM -0400, H.S. wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Can somebody tell me if the following is possible using apt pinning? I
>> want to install the newer version of kernel (linux-image-2.6-686, ver
>> now is, I think, 2.6.29-3) from Untable to my Testing machine.
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 04:31:32PM -0400, H.S. wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Can somebody tell me if the following is possible using apt pinning? I
> want to install the newer version of kernel (linux-image-2.6-686, ver
> now is, I think, 2.6.29-3) from Untable to my Testing machine.
Please read:
http://
In , H.S. wrote:
>Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> In , emikaadeo wrote:
>>> H.S. wrote:
Can somebody tell me if the following is possible using apt pinning? I
want to install the newer version of kernel (linux-image-2.6-686, ver
now is, I think, 2.6.29-3) from Untable to my Testing
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> In , emikaadeo wrote:
>> H.S. wrote:
>>> Can somebody tell me if the following is possible using apt pinning? I
>>> want to install the newer version of kernel (linux-image-2.6-686, ver
>>> now is, I think, 2.6.29-3) from Untable to my Testing machine.
>>>
>>> I am t
In , emikaadeo wrote:
>H.S. wrote:
>> Can somebody tell me if the following is possible using apt pinning? I
>> want to install the newer version of kernel (linux-image-2.6-686, ver
>> now is, I think, 2.6.29-3) from Untable to my Testing machine.
>>
>> I am thinking of using apt pinning. Something
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
