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, with this configuration, and entries for stable, > > testing and unstable in sources.list, if a dist-upgrade is run then apt > > will update every current installed package to the lastest version (if > > avaiable) in unstable. > > No, it takes the package (newer than the installed version) that has > the highest priority. > 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 upgrade of a stable package to the unstable version of the same. This is what I understood from the manuals, but I confess I haven't tried it yet. > > To be stick on stable we should set priority to some value greater > > than 1000, but on the other hand in this case we couldn't upgrade > > unstable packages installed using -t. Am I wrong? > > Priorities above 1000 are there if you want to allow to downgrade. > IMHO, they are useful only for pinning particular packages. > > -- > Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.org> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> - 100% > validated (X)HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International > des Jeux Mathématiques et Logiques, TETRHEX, etc. > Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA -- Bruno Diniz de Paula <diniz@cs.rutgers.edu> Rutgers University
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part