[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: False information on backports.org

Am Sonntag 07 Oktober 2007 22:26:47 schrieb Gerfried Fuchs:
> * Martin Ammermüller <tenco@gmx.de> [2007-10-07 20:14:29 CEST]:
> > On http://www.backports.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=instructions the section
> > about pinning is incorrect.
>  It's not, that's what's called sensible suggestion.

"Then you have to set a higher priority for each backport, yes that means 
every backport, also for every dependency."

Sorry, but that doesn't sound like a suggestion to me, instead i take this as: 
there's no other way to do this.

> > You don't have to pin each backport individually, you can also use
> > wildcards in /etc/apt/preferences to e.g. use always a package from
> > backports (if it exists):
>  You can also shoot into your foot if you like. Pulling every package
> from backports instead of just the ones you really need is a pretty bad
> idea.


> If you really don't care that much what you pull from there you 
> should reconsider switching to testing directly because that clearly
> shows that you haven't understood the purpose of backports.

Currently i have 1104 packages installed including 98 packages from 
backports.org. That's only nearly 7.8% of all installed packages. I don't know 
why i should switch to testing. About 70 of these packages from backports.org 
are there because of KDE 3.5.7. I won't pin 70 packages by hand, switching 
back and forth between aptitude and editing /etc/apt/preferences because i 
have to pin all dependencies, too.

Well, problems. The only problem i have so far is that KDE's media manager 
stopped working. And i hoped to fix that by pinning * (maybe some 
false/broken dependencies, i thought :-/ ).

Best regards,

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: