Re: Bug#179868: apt: no way to really use Pin: origin, at least with cdroms
>>>>> "jg" == Jason Gunthorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
jg> On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Dan Jacobson wrote:
>> we see that priorities are all bunk: 111 vs. 888 and it still chooses
>> 111. So why differentiate all the numbers between 100 and 990 if in
>> fact they are all the same. why not just call them "priority C" or
>> something. Ok enough for today.
jg> You are confusing the selection of verion with the selection of download
jg> source. Since all your examples deal with only 1 version available through
jg> the internet and through a CDROM they are invalid.
the doc said:
A note of caution: the keyword used in the APT prefer-
ences file to select the source site is "origin". This
may lead one to confuse the source site with the "Ori-
gin:" of a release as specified in a Release file.
Recall that what follows the "Origin:" tag in a Release
file generally is not an Internet site address but an
author or vendor name, such as "Debian" or "Ximian".
So I thought I already got that level of confusion dealt with.
Pin: release o=Debian
Pin: origin debian.linux.org.tw
See, I was using the latter.
It said source _site_. And debian.linux.org.tw indeed caused it to
match, as seen with apt-cache policy. BTW
policy policy is ment to help debug issues relating to the preferences
jg> Preferences will never allow you to select download source. That is not
jg> it's purpose.
OK, if "source site" doesn't mean download source, than maybe it means
file: vs. http: vs. cdrom: etc. but my tinkerings never produced a
match on these.
jg> To control the select of download source you need to order your
jg> sources.list by preference. This is documented someplace. Yes you have to
jg> sometimes do some manual things for the reordering to take effect.
[Maybe bring this ordering into a complete points system by giving each
item one extra point counting from the bottom... no, never mind.
I know, new policy: if there is a tie with the numbers, then we use
the highest one in the sources.list...]
Anyways there is an undeniable bug that just reordering sources.list
is not enough to stimulate changes getting registered.
If I were them i'd just check if it changed since last time i compiled