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

Re: Some myths regarding apt pinning

Nick Phillips wrote:
> [/me puts head in clouds...]
> I wonder how easy it would be to keep a collection of, say, all the
> essential packages from unstable built on stable.

Hmm... Isn't libc essential?  Well, required anyway.  Sounds like you
have described sid to me.

But if I join you in those clouds and change the specification to say
no shared library updates above stable instead then I think we have
something useful.  In this dream world would it be possible to have a
track that is all stable shared libs but the latest executables?

Of course if something requires functionality updated in a shared
library then that package can't transfer to this backport track.  And
there would need to be checks that a shared library does not sneak
through hidden in a package where one would not expect it.  But others
that don't need that do transfer and this would be an automatic
backport to stable track.  That seems like a workable model to me.

Okay, shoot me down too.  Why won't that work.  For one it is really
too complicated to pull off easily and automatically.


Attachment: pgpboZFksYXvA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: