> "Bob" == Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I know. But then, there is no "standard" anyway, so that can't be
>> said to be "required". For me as long as my tools happily read them
>> it's okay.
Bob> Perhaps no standard. But if you don't escape them somehow then t
Missed one...
++
| | | Recommended | |
| User type | Criteria | Debian | Note |
| | | Flavor |
Isaac To wrote:
> > "Bob" == Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Bob> And added by any delivery agent delivering mail to an old style
> Bob> mail file. It is not just procmail. It is required.
>
> I know. But then, there is no "standard" anyway, so that can't be said to
> be
Bruno Diniz de Paula wrote:
> But before looking at the priority, it looks at the version
> of the packages.
No, it is the other way around, I believe. First priority,
then version.
I include an updated edition of the apt preferences(5)
manual page; it hasn't yet been uploaded. Some of the
for
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 10:22:29 -0500, Bruno Diniz de Paula wrote:
> But before looking at the priority, it looks at the version of the
> packages. So, usually the version on unstable is the highest, and its
> priority (700) is greater than the currently installed package (100),
> allowing the upg
On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 05:02, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 19:05:49 -0500, Bruno Diniz de Paula wrote:
> > Are you really sure that setting the priorities of stable, testing and
> > unstable to 900, 800 and 700, respectively, we would be able to have a
> > mixed system? IMHO, w
> "Bob" == Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bob> And added by any delivery agent delivering mail to an old style
Bob> mail file. It is not just procmail. It is required.
I know. But then, there is no "standard" anyway, so that can't be said to
be "required". For me as long a
On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 19:05:49 -0500, Bruno Diniz de Paula wrote:
> Are you really sure that setting the priorities of stable, testing and
> unstable to 900, 800 and 700, respectively, we would be able to have a
> mixed system? IMHO, with this configuration, and entries for stable,
> testing and
Osamu Aoki wrote:
>
>Anyway, it may be good idea to put something like following in Debian
>web site to reduce this type of confusion.
>==
>What Debian is best for me?
>
> Debian is available in 3 major flavors - stable, test
On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 02:26, Osamu Aoki wrote:
[***SNIP!!!***]
> ==
> What Debian is best for me?
>
> Debian is available in 3 major flavors - stable, testing, and unstable -
> for practically all CPU architectures. Here i
On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 11:01:08AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 12:39:32AM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> I'm currently subscribed to the German Debian user list and it happens
> that people tell _novice users_ things like:
>
> Yes, Debian stable is horribly outdated, but wit
Are you really sure that setting the priorities of stable, testing and
unstable to 900, 800 and 700, respectively, we would be able to have a
mixed system? IMHO, with this configuration, and entries for stable,
testing and unstable in sources.list, if a dist-upgrade is run then apt
will update ever
On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 14:59:26 -0500, Lloyd Zusman wrote:
> So in that case, what would be the solution? I guess we would have to
> know what testing packages have fixes in unstable, and then use the "-t
> unstable" option to apt-get ... correct?
Yes, but unfortunately, this is not automatical.
On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 13:40:39 -0600, Jeffrey L. Taylor wrote:
> Quoting Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [snip]
> > If I am not mistaken, it is possible to avoid this
> > worst case scenario by appropriately setting up apt's
> > preferences. Suppose I set the priorities of distributions
> >
> "Russell" == Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Russell> Another way to install the odd package from testing or unstable
Russell> is to download the *.deb package with a browser download, then
Russell> use dpkg -i.
That isn't any better than pinning, since that won't pull in the
dependenc
Isaac To wrote:
> When the above mail arrives my mailbox, the "From " becomes ">From ". This
> is de-facto standard (for V7 Mailboxes), I know, and is added by procmail.
And added by any delivery agent delivering mail to an old style mail
file. It is not just procmail. It is required.
> Anyone
Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 13:25:50 +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
>> If I am not mistaken, it is possible to avoid this
>> worst case scenario by appropriately setting up apt's
>> preferences. Suppose I set the priorities of distributions
>> as follows
>>
Quoting Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip]
> If I am not mistaken, it is possible to avoid this
> worst case scenario by appropriately setting up apt's
> preferences. Suppose I set the priorities of distributions
> as follows
> stable 900
> testing 800
> unstable 700
What file d
On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 13:25:50 +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
> If I am not mistaken, it is possible to avoid this
> worst case scenario by appropriately setting up apt's
> preferences. Suppose I set the priorities of distributions
> as follows
> stable 900
> testing 800
> unstable 700
>
I tried to install emacs-nox from unstable with aptitude. Now it is
pulling all of unstable, a dozen packages at a time. How do I revert
to stable? And is there a way to just get emacs-nox from unstable (or
testing) with a minimum number of dependencies, leaving the bulk of
the packages at stabl
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 02:59:17PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> From a security point of view woody + libc6 from unstable is worse than
> any other possibility. Consider there's another security bug in libc6.
> The fixed version for stable has a lower version number than the version
> on your sys
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 11:21:01AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 02:59:17PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >Every user of testing knows that he must read debian-security-announce
> >and if needed install fixes from unstable since it can take an arbitrary
> >amount of time unti
On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 12:39:32AM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
> Thanks you for your interesting review of apt pinning and their security
> implications. I think the real mith is "novice user can *upgrade*
> system to the *latest* unstable distribution by apt-get."
>
> I saw many unexpe
Hi,
Thanks you for your interesting review of apt pinning and their security
implications. I think the real mith is "novice user can *upgrade*
system to the *latest* unstable distribution by apt-get."
I saw many unexperienced users try to *upgrade* to the unstable and
getting into major truble.
Lloyd Zusman wrote:
Erik Steffl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[ ... ]
but the point is that pinning is not very good because you either
bring a number of important packages from unstable (libc6, perl etc)
or you simply cannot use it. reading of the manual page and checking
the apt-listch
Erik Steffl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [ ... ]
>
>but the point is that pinning is not very good because you either
>bring a number of important packages from unstable (libc6, perl etc)
>or you simply cannot use it. reading of the manual page and checking
>the apt-listchanges do
Erik Steffl wrote:
Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
On Fre, 2003-01-24 at 14:59, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Since some people seem to thing apt pinning can solve all problems
with outdated packages in stable I want to explain why this is wrong:
apt pinning is good if you are running testi
Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
On Fre, 2003-01-24 at 14:59, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Since some people seem to thing apt pinning can solve all problems with
outdated packages in stable I want to explain why this is wrong:
apt pinning is good if you are running testing but need a package
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 09:23:26AM -0800, Craig Dickson wrote:
> > The testing distribution has *exactly* the same problem, as the
> > unstable libc is different from the testing libc.
>
> That's true currently, but it should be temporary, right? (Of course,
> it's been temporary for some time now
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> The testing distribution has *exactly* the same problem, as the
> unstable libc is different from the testing libc.
That's true currently, but it should be temporary, right? (Of course,
it's been temporary for some time now, but at least in theory, things
are supposed to
On Fre, 2003-01-24 at 14:59, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Since some people seem to thing apt pinning can solve all problems with
> outdated packages in stable I want to explain why this is wrong:
>
> apt pinning is good if you are running testing but need a package (e.g.
> a security update) from unstab
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 02:59:17PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Every user of testing knows that he must read debian-security-announce
and if needed install fixes from unstable since it can take an arbitrary
amount of time until security fixes from unstable enter testing (most
This is insufficient,
> "Adrian" == Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adrian> From a security point of view woody + libc6 from unstable is
Adrian> worse than any other possibility. Consider there's another
Adrian> security bug in libc6. The fixed version for stable has a lower
Adrian> version
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 14:59:17 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Since some people seem to thing apt pinning can solve all problems with
> outdated packages in stable I want to explain why this is wrong:
>
> apt pinning is good if you are running testing but need a package (e.g.
> a security update)
Since some people seem to thing apt pinning can solve all problems with
outdated packages in stable I want to explain why this is wrong:
apt pinning is good if you are running testing but need a package (e.g.
a security update) from unstable.
There are people that use apt pinning to install pack
35 matches
Mail list logo
