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

Re: Some myths regarding apt pinning

Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
On Fre, 2003-01-24 at 14:59, Adrian Bunk wrote:

Since some people seem to thing apt pinning can solve all problems with outdated packages in stable I want to explain why this is wrong:

apt pinning is good if you are running testing but need a package (e.g.
a security update) from unstable.

There are people that use apt pinning to install packages from unstable on a woody system. This is bad because nearly every installation of a package from unstable pulls a new libc6 and it's also possible that it pulls a new Perl and Python. Then some _very_ essential components of your system are upgraded to the potentially more buggy versions in unstable.

apt-get tells you beforehand exactly what it's going to do.
apt-listchanges even shows you the changelogs so you have a very late
point of no return. I claim everybody who accidently upgraded perl
deserves it.

The only thing that could be better is perhaps that apt-get should
display what it's going to install in terms of ... NEW packages ...
perl/unstable or so.
I often recommend apt pinning if somebody asks about installing woody
but wanting newre packages. I'd expect that reading a man page and
thinking about what one is going to do is something that everybody
learns to do on a unixy system.

but the point is that pinning is not very good because you either bring a number of important packages from unstable (libc6, perl etc) or you simply cannot use it. reading of the manual page and checking the apt-listchanges does not solve the problem. i.e. you recommend pinning, person reads the manpage, tries pinning and finds out that it was pretty much pointless excercise because it would upgrade large part of the system to unstable. or yet another wording: Adrian Bunk wasn't complaining about system actually upgrading packages but about system trying to upgrade packages.


Reply to: