Re: etch-backports strangeness
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Roberto C. Sánchez
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 03:42:55PM +0100, Boris Dores wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 09:05:08AM (GMT-0500), Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>> > What I do not understand is why hundreds of packages would be scheduled
>> > to upgrade, even when many of them are installed from the etch version,
>> > and not from the etch-backports version.
>> > Could someone hazard a guess as to what is going on?
>> It's seems likely that there is a line with "stable" instead of "etch"
>> in your /etc/apt/sources.list, automatically trigerring the upgrade when
>> Lenny was released this week end.
>> Best regards.
> Sorry for not being more precise, but that is not it. Packages are only
> being upgraded to the latest version of etch-backports (whether or not
> the version currently installed on the system was pulled from
> etch-backports) and there are no occurrences of "stable" in my
> If "stable" were in there, it'd be lots more packages for the upgrade.
apt-cache policy <package>
on some of those packages going to be upgraded. Maybe it will give you
Ondřej Surý <email@example.com>