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
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 want to really understand what i
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
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
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,
yesterday I noticed something strange in the behavior of apt-get on my
debian Jessie system.
When I do
apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade
the system is reported as up to date, no upgrades available - fine.
Now I tried and "simulated" a temporarily broken internet connection (just
to se
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
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 I want to use apt-pining.
I have set all p
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
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
# deb [arch=amd64,i386] http://debian.tu-bs.de/debian/ wheezy mai
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Brendan Miller wrote:
>
> I'm on debian stable (squeeze), but would like to be able to install a
> few packages from testing (wheezy). I tried to set up apt pinning, but
> it doesn't seem to work quite right. When I apt-get install somethi
Brendan Miller wrote:
>> I'm on debian stable (squeeze), but would like to be able to install a
>> few packages from testing (wheezy). I tried to set up apt pinning, but
>> it doesn't seem to work quite right. When I apt-get install something
>> now, it all comes f
kages
release v=6.0.6,o=Debian,a=stable,n=squeeze,l=Debian,c=main
origin ftp-mirror.internap.com
Pinned packages:
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Brendan Miller wrote:
> I'm on debian stable (squeeze), but would like to be able to install a
> few packages from testing (wheezy). I tri
I'm on debian stable (squeeze), but would like to be able to install a
few packages from testing (wheezy). I tried to set up apt pinning, but
it doesn't seem to work quite right. When I apt-get install something
now, it all comes from wheezy even if there are squeeze versions of
the pac
On 18.07.2012 10:31, Denis Witt wrote:
I also created the file "php" in /etc/apt/preferences.d/ containing:
Package: php*
Pin: release n=squeeze
Pin-Priority: 900
Package: libapache2-mod-php5
Pin: release n=squeeze
Pin-Priority: 900
I got it working. apt obviously dislikes leadin
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
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 installed
PHP5.3 from Squeeze.
I also created the file "php" in /etc/apt/preferences.d/ containing:
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
-essential. There are many dependencies
which usually are solved automatically.
I think this is something that shouldn't be. When I want to install build-
essential it asks for libc6-dev which depends on libc but a newer version
is to be installed:
http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=FCBUeaVg
It
#x27;s going on with this although manually installing "linux-
headers-3.2.0-0.bpo.2-686-pae" in addition to the metacpake should work.
> Yesterday I had the problem with alsa but today witchcraft made the
> problem with alsa disappear but the one with the kernel header and as
> w
essential appear.
Is this really a problem of the apt pinning numbers?
Or what can you suggest me to do?
Maybe stick with the stable kernel and compile alsa from source?
Best regards
Ramon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of &quo
Javier Barroso (javibarr...@gmail.com on 2011-05-12 19:11 +0200):
>
> Other possible solution would be pinning all packages from sid to
> their current version (upgrading glibc with the bug, of course), and
> removing sid from sources.list, and again wait, but this time you
> could upgrade your sys
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
I thought I had a pretty good grasp of pinning, but I can't understand the
following behavior. What I'm trying to do is, for a particular package,
always install the newest package version from either my local archive
OR lenny-backports.
My local archive is oldstable (same as lenny), and I have n
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
Good day.
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).
My questions are:
1. How is done?
2. How I can find out the repos
> 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/
Manao ahoana, Hello, Bonjour,
I have a personnal repository where I have
- postfix-*-2.5.5-0.blueline.0 packages
The personnal repository hostname is "ppa.blueline.mg"
That postfix is a patched and (re-)packaged postfix.
I have also a mirror (for the rest of the packages), where there are
- post
>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
Hi Boyd,
I think in both these cases you are being bit by having APT::Default-Release
"testing" in /etc/apt/apt.conf(.d). The relevant quote from man 5
apt_preferences is "The target release can be set on the apt-get command line
or in the APT configuration file /etc/apt/apt.conf. Note that
In <4b60a4dc.2030...@mgoetze.net>, Michael Goetze wrote:
>I've struggled with this issue for hours and gotten no help from
>Manpages, nor IRC. So if someone could help me and CC me on their reply
>(as I am not subscribed), I would be very grateful.
>
>=== Begin /etc/apt/preferences ===
[...]
>Packa
Hi Javier,
> Does help Pin: release o=Unofficial* ?
>
> I don't sure, maybe this is a space character issue ? Did you test
with quotes ?
Unfortunately, the suggested line doesn't help. As I already wrote:
> I have also tried "l=" instead of "o=", as well as copy&pasting the
> complete release
Hi Boyd,
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
Any specific questions after that, you can contact me via PM and I also watch
the list.
I'm sorry to say your answer didn't help me. I thought the questions in
my original message were already quite specific and demonstrated that I
had understood the ba
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
1 - 100 of 213 matches
Mail list logo
