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



I am getting completely confused with apt/preferences in woody.

My understanding is that the first match is used (true/false?). That
would make the following preferences file refuse to upgrade any

Package: *
Pin-Priority: -2

Package: *
Pin: release a=testing
Pin-Priority: 700

Package: *
Pin: release a=unstable
Pin-Priority: 0

However apt-get still wants to upgrade these packages to the unstable

snoopy:unstable:/var/cache/apt-cacher# apt-get upgrade --show-upgraded
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following packages will be upgraded
  elm-me+ gnome-admin kaffe scannerdaemon virussignatures 
5 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0  not upgraded.
Need to get 3143kB of archives. After unpacking 139kB will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n] 

apt-cache policy says:

snoopy:unstable:/var/cache/apt-cacher# apt-cache policy       
Package Files:
 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
     release a=now
 500 http://snoopy.apana.org.au ./ Packages
     origin snoopy.apana.org.au
 500 http://snoopy.apana.org.au woody/non-free Packages
     release v=1.3,o=Blackdown,a=woody,l=Blackdown Java-Linux
     origin snoopy.apana.org.au
 699 http://snoopy.apana.org.au unstable/non-US/non-free Packages
     release o=Debian,a=unstable,l=Debian,c=non-US/non-free
     origin snoopy.apana.org.au
 699 http://snoopy.apana.org.au unstable/non-US/contrib Packages
     release o=Debian,a=unstable,l=Debian,c=non-US/contrib
     origin snoopy.apana.org.au
 699 http://snoopy.apana.org.au unstable/non-US/main Packages
     release o=Debian,a=unstable,l=Debian,c=non-US/main
     origin snoopy.apana.org.au
 699 http://snoopy.apana.org.au unstable/contrib Packages
     release o=Debian,a=unstable,l=Debian,c=contrib
     origin snoopy.apana.org.au
 699 http://snoopy.apana.org.au unstable/non-free Packages
     release o=Debian,a=unstable,l=Debian,c=non-free
     origin snoopy.apana.org.au
 699 http://snoopy.apana.org.au unstable/main Packages
     release o=Debian,a=unstable,l=Debian,c=main
     origin snoopy.apana.org.au
 700 http://snoopy.apana.org.au woody/non-US/non-free Packages
     release o=Debian,a=testing,l=Debian,c=non-US/non-free
     origin snoopy.apana.org.au
 700 http://snoopy.apana.org.au woody/non-US/contrib Packages
     release o=Debian,a=testing,l=Debian,c=non-US/contrib
     origin snoopy.apana.org.au
 700 http://snoopy.apana.org.au woody/non-US/main Packages
     release o=Debian,a=testing,l=Debian,c=non-US/main
     origin snoopy.apana.org.au
 700 http://snoopy.apana.org.au woody/contrib Packages
     release o=Debian,a=testing,l=Debian,c=contrib
     origin snoopy.apana.org.au
 700 http://snoopy.apana.org.au woody/non-free Packages
     release o=Debian,a=testing,l=Debian,c=non-free
     origin snoopy.apana.org.au
 700 http://snoopy.apana.org.au woody/main Packages
     release o=Debian,a=testing,l=Debian,c=main
     origin snoopy.apana.org.au
Pinned Packages:

which I find confusing in itself, where did it get this 699 from for
unstable packages? Why was 0 or -2 not used? Where did 500 come from?
Why was the -2 not used instead?

I was also under the impression that the package with the highest
priority would get installed (assuming its an upgrade not a downgrade),
but that doesn't seem to be the case:

snoopy:unstable:/var/cache/apt-cacher# apt-cache policy kaffe         
  Installed: 1:1.0.6-3
  Candidate: 1:1.0.6-7+.cvs20020411
  Version Table:
     1:1.0.6-7+.cvs20020411 0
        699 http://snoopy.apana.org.au unstable/main Packages
 *** 1:1.0.6-3 0
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
     1:1.0.5e-0.5 0
        700 http://snoopy.apana.org.au woody/main Packages

why is it installing the unstable version (699) when the woody version
has a higher priority (700)?

LATER: is there something special about Pin-Priority: 0 that messes
everything up?
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: