on Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 04:57:34PM -0500, Greg Stark (gsstark@mit.edu) wrote:
>
> "Julian Mehnle" <lists@mehnle.net> writes:
>
> > First, I think what Daniel Jacobowitz said is entirely true. Why didn't you
> > start with "testing"?
>
> Sure testing is less likely to trigger this.
Frankly, I'd have started stable. Moving up's tons easier than moving
down. As you've noted. And largely trivial.
> > Or, you could create a file /etc/apt/preferences and pin the
> > "testing" version of the package with a high enough priority. See
> > `man apt_preferences`. Then do a `apt-get dist-upgrade`.
>
> That's about the last place I would send a new user. I read that man
> page about three times during this crisis before I decided it would be
> hopeless to try to explain this procedure online.
Explain what?
Greg: Grab this file, copy it to /etc/apt/preferences:
<url>/preferences
Friend: OK.
> This is what I meant about there not being an "interface".
File copying, particularly for an experienced sysadmin, is a damned
useful "interface".
> If apt said "Hm, version 1.2 of libc failed to configure, would you
> like to install the previous version (1.1) from testing and hold back
> the following packages that depend on the new one (awk, grep, sed)
> [Yn]?" That would be an interface.
Pinning can get you much of the way here.
Problem is that dependencies work forward: you can't be sure of getting
a package in a prior release -- it may not be available.
libc is a particularly pathelogical case, for all the obvious reasons.
> Telling people, go edit this random file with to set "pin priorities"
> for things to arbitrary numbers, find out what package dependencies
> fail, add those to your list of pin priorities, etc. That's not a
> useful interface for this case.
Telling people to start off with unstable is about as useless.
> In any case having the granularity of "stable", "testing", "unstable"
> really doesn't help. All the package versions are in the pool. I want
> to be able to tell apt to try such and such version, or at least put
> back the version I had before and restore whatever other packages it
> must to satisfy dependencies.
Look: Either KISS and stick with stable, accept the pain of testing, or
learn how to use pinning and come up with a perferences file that works.
Your friend can copy this from any given website you can access.
> I didn't say it was a good idea or that it was going to work.
> My whole point is that that approach sucks and we should make
> something more effective rather than leave the admin stuck.
Assuming _you_ have experience with Debian, and are aware of limitations
and trade-offs, you've led your friend astray.
I spend a fair amount of time in IRC support for #debian. Lots of n00bs
come on wanting to install Debian unstable. The advice is consistent:
Don't. Not if you don't know your way around tha packaging system yet.
I've had a number of friends convert to Debian -- most of them love it,
aggressively. But to a one they all wanted to go straight to unstable.
After nearly five years, I still hold to testing with a few exceptions
handled through pins.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Bush/Cheny '04: BU__SH__!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature