Re: APT problem
Craig Sanders <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 09:31:57PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > [Alex Romosan wrote:]
> > > which are not on by default and then i have to put the packages on
> > > hold because apt wants to get the remote ones.
> > You have to do this anyhow, otherwise the package will get upgraded
> > and you will loose your changes. In all cases I can think of where
> > a package is locally recompiled and has not been placed on hold you
> > would indeed want the 'newer' archive package to be installed. The
> > motivating factor here is local slink recompiles of potato packages.
> i may be missing something here, but why not change the debian revision
> number when you recompile the package? takes a few seconds to edit the
> changelog. that's what i do...it works for me<tm>.
i usually do that, but sometimes i forget and i find it annoying that
apt assumes by default that the mirror packages are "newer" than my
local packages. it just doesn't feel right. also, this doesn't work
with 'apt-get source -b <package>'. what's the point in having the
ability to download the source and recompile it automatically if the
next upgrade will wipe it out. if i choose to recompile a package, apt
should leave it alone until a newer version comes along. to me, at
least, this idea of always fetching the mirror package, feels too much
like microsoft. also, before apt, dselect use to leave the packages
alone, maybe that's when i got used to the idea that my local packages
shouldn't be touched if they have the same version number.
| I believe the moment is at hand when, by a paranoiac and active |
| advance of the mind, it will be possible (simultaneously with |
| automatism and other passive states) to systematize confusion |
| and thus to help to discredit completely the world of reality. |
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org