Re: Package Version Numbers

2009-08-11 Thread Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
In <5in185hijnaa5tsr4sjp5586u3ucbrv...@4ax.com>, Jeff Grossman wrote: >"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." wrote: >>In <47pt7511s56vq779jtfp2ap0059a8m4...@4ax.com>, Jeff Grossman wrote: >>>mail:~# apt-cache policy php5 >>>php5: >>> Installed: 5.2.6.dfsg.1-1+lenny3+custom1 >>> Candidate: 5.2.9.dfsg.1-4 >>>

Re: Package Version Numbers

2009-08-10 Thread Jeff Grossman
"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." wrote: >In <47pt7511s56vq779jtfp2ap0059a8m4...@4ax.com>, Jeff Grossman wrote: >>mail:~# apt-cache policy php5 >>php5: >> Installed: 5.2.6.dfsg.1-1+lenny3+custom1 >> Candidate: 5.2.9.dfsg.1-4 >> Version table: >> 5.2.10.dfsg.1-2 0 >>200 http://ftp.us.debian.

Re: Package Version Numbers

2009-08-10 Thread Jeff Grossman
"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." wrote: >Installed packages that are not available in a repository have a priority of >100. You could pin (by version) your custom package version to 400 or so. >Alternatively would could put your local packages in a local repository and >pin that repository to 400 o

Re: Package Version Numbers

2009-08-10 Thread Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
In <47pt7511s56vq779jtfp2ap0059a8m4...@4ax.com>, Jeff Grossman wrote: >mail:~# apt-cache policy php5 >php5: > Installed: 5.2.6.dfsg.1-1+lenny3+custom1 > Candidate: 5.2.9.dfsg.1-4 > Version table: > 5.2.10.dfsg.1-2 0 >200 http://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main Packages > 5.2.9.dfs

Re: Package Version Numbers

2009-08-10 Thread Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
In , Jeff Grossman wrote: >I am running Debian Stable on a server. The package in >stable right now is called "5.2.6.dfsg.1-1+lenny3". I called my new >packages "5.2.6.dfsg.1-1+lenny3+custom1". I have the following >settings in my apt.conf file in case I ever need to install anything >from testi

Re: Package Version Numbers

2009-08-09 Thread Wolodja Wentland
On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 14:48 +1000, Jaime Tarrant wrote: [... snip ...] > You may, although it is not really essential if you also have release > preferences configured as above, put the following in > /etc/apt/apt.conf > APT::Default-Release "stable"; Bug #97564 is finally fixed in apt 0.7.22,

Re: Package Version Numbers

2009-08-09 Thread Jeff Grossman
Jaime Tarrant wrote: >* Jeff Grossman (j...@stikman.com) wrote: >> I am running Debian Stable on a server. I downloaded the source >> package for PHP so I could remove the Suhosin patch. It was causing a >> lot of problems with my scripts. I have a question regarding what I >> should call the

Re: Package Version Numbers

2009-08-08 Thread Jaime Tarrant
* Jeff Grossman (j...@stikman.com) wrote: > I am running Debian Stable on a server. I downloaded the source > package for PHP so I could remove the Suhosin patch. It was causing a > lot of problems with my scripts. I have a question regarding what I > should call the new packages that I am build

Re: package version numbers

2009-01-18 Thread NN_il_Confusionario
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 04:56:30PM -0500, Rick Pasotto wrote: > Anyway, I see that xmms is replaced by xmms2 and that qiv will upgrade > with libglib1.2ldbl. My only remaining problem is multi-gnome-terminal, > which is not in lenny. If you really want to use old packages on modern debian distribu

Re: package version numbers

2009-01-18 Thread Carlos Sousa
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:56:30 -0500 Rick Pasotto wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 12:46:32PM -0800, Daniel Burrows wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 09:42:26AM -0500, Rick Pasotto was > > heard to say: > > > There are several packages that, when I try to upgrade them, aptitude > > > tells me th

Re: package version numbers

2009-01-18 Thread Rick Pasotto
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 12:46:32PM -0800, Daniel Burrows wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 09:42:26AM -0500, Rick Pasotto was > heard to say: > > There are several packages that, when I try to upgrade them, aptitude > > tells me that doing so would break many other packages. For these other > > pa

Re: package version numbers

2009-01-18 Thread Daniel Burrows
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 09:42:26AM -0500, Rick Pasotto was heard to say: > There are several packages that, when I try to upgrade them, aptitude > tells me that doing so would break many other packages. For these other > packages aptitude says: > > Depends: libglib1.2 (>= 1.2.0) but it is

Re: package version numbers

2009-01-18 Thread Carlos Sousa
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:42:26 -0500 Rick Pasotto wrote: > There are several packages that, when I try to upgrade them, aptitude > tells me that doing so would break many other packages. For these other > packages aptitude says: > > Depends: libglib1.2 (>= 1.2.0) but it is not installable >

Re: package version numbers

2007-08-30 Thread Bob Proulx
Rick Pasotto wrote: > Aptitude reports that for several packages: > > Depends: libglib1.2 (>= 1.2.0) but it is not installable > > however 'apt-cache policy libglib1.2' reports: > > libglib1.2: > Installed: 1.2.10-17 > Candidate: 1.2.10-17 > Version table: > *** 1.2.10-17 0 >