Problem pinning openoffice from lenny-backports
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I wanted to install openoffice.org 1:3.0.1-7~bpo50+1 from
lenny-backports/main to replace version 1:2.4.1-17+b1 provided by
lenny/main.
First, I added lenny-backports to /etc/apt/sources.list and then ran
"aptitude update". I decided to use pinning in order to give priority to
the later verson. In accordance with the pinning instructions provided
on the backports instructions page, I created file /etc/apt/preferences
with the following content:
Package: openoffice.org
Pin: release a=lenny-backports
Pin-Priority: 990
When I ran "aptitude upgrade" openoffice.org 3 was not installed, and
the following error was returned:
E: Invalid record in the preferences file, no Package header
So something was wrong, and I would appreciate knowing what.
Since I could not install openoffice 3 by pinning, I ran "aptitude -t
lenny-backports openoffice" which did install it, along with a number of
updated packages. I was then able to open OOo 3. When however I ran
that command I was first told what packages would be installed or
upgraded. Then, immediately before I was requested to accept (or
reject) those package installations and upgrades, the following line
appeared:
Score is 850
I am curious to know the significance of this "score".
Finally, the instructions mentioned that if I wanted automatic upgrades
of backport packages I should add the following in file
/etc/apt/preferences:
Package: *
Pin: release a=lenny-backports
Pin-Priority: 200
Do all I need to do to activate such upgrades is to put these lines in
the preferences file by themselves? In view of my inability to get
pinning to work so far, I would appreciate assurance that doing so will
have the desired effect.
Regards, Ken Heard
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAknWU+0ACgkQlNlJzOkJmTdhPgCcDNibGNBxZ6lDRXFiOkzXzd66
fRcAnja4BpGx4z+P2XLHY00S25SPeBaC
=EyxS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: