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

Re: Fwd:APT preferences, undocumented Pin=1



Hi,

On Thursday 07 August 2008 15:00, Matteo Semplice wrote:
> Dear everybody,
>  I just sent this to the debian apt package maintainers, but this issue
> should be probably mentioned in the backports "instructions", so I send it
> here as well.

I'm surprised your mail stayed unreplyed on backports-users@...

> ================ Forwarded message ===========
> Dear maintainers,
>  I understand that you're busy with the frozen lenny, but I finally manage
> to pinpoint an issue with apt-get and backports.
>
> I find quite confusing that the following is needed to track and
> automatically upgrade openoffice.org from etch-backports. In particular
> omitting the first Pin-Priority stanza sets the priority of the whole
> etch-backports to 1 and the openoffice.org stanza does not have effect: the
> package is not upgraded with "apt-get upgrade" when a new version becomes
> available in etch-backports.
>
> ==== /etc/apt/preferences ===
> Package: *
> Pin: release a=etch-backports
> Pin-Priority: 700
>
> Package: openoffice.org
> Pin: release a=etch-backports
> Pin-Priority: 850
>
> Package: *
> Pin: release a=stable,v=4.0*
> Pin-Priority: 800
> =============================

This is indeed somewhat contrary to 
http://backports.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=instructions which doesnt state one 
has to pin * at all...

I normally don't use backports.org this way, so I can neither confirm nor deny 
this, and I also have no idea atm how to debug this, as I cannot forsee which 
package will be updated next on bpo..

> This, I guess, is related to the "NotAutomatic: yes" issue mentioned in bug
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=490347, but it seems to me
> a more general issue.

I'm tempted to cc: this bug as from the bug description I don't really get 
what the bug is about ;-) OTOH, I expect/hopoe this will become clearer in a 
reply to this mail, so I'll wait, to not clutter the bugreport with noise.

> I am willing to give further details and/or file a new bug, if needed, but
> hope that this issue can be clarified for lenny...

Please explain.


regards,
	Holger

Attachment: pgpUKe7DW5ZKG.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: