Re: Usefulness of adding APT::Default-Release

2019-05-10 Thread Sven Joachim
On 2019-05-10 13:45 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Fri 10 May 2019 at 20:14:20 (+0200), Sven Joachim wrote: >> On 2019-05-08 13:14 -0500, David Wright wrote: >> >> > I'm trying to ascertain what APT::Default-Release can do for me, >> > and what it constrains. In the output that follows, why does

Re: Usefulness of adding APT::Default-Release

2019-05-10 Thread David Wright
On Fri 10 May 2019 at 20:14:20 (+0200), Sven Joachim wrote: > On 2019-05-08 13:14 -0500, David Wright wrote: > > > I'm trying to ascertain what APT::Default-Release can do for me, > > and what it constrains. In the output that follows, why does > > APT::Default-Release prevent firefox from being u

Re: Usefulness of adding APT::Default-Release

2019-05-10 Thread Sven Joachim
On 2019-05-08 13:14 -0500, David Wright wrote: > I'm trying to ascertain what APT::Default-Release can do for me, > and what it constrains. In the output that follows, why does > APT::Default-Release prevent firefox from being upgraded? Because stretch-updates ≢ stretch, see bug #173215[1] (with

Usefulness of adding APT::Default-Release

2019-05-08 Thread David Wright
I'm trying to ascertain what APT::Default-Release can do for me, and what it constrains. In the output that follows, why does APT::Default-Release prevent firefox from being upgraded? I comment out the APT::Default-Release line and repeat after the ##. The necessary packages are in apt-cac