Re: Backports upgrade policy (ButAutomaticUpdates:yes)
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013, Wookey wrote:
>> +++ martin f krafft [2013-01-25 16:06 +1300]:
>> > also sprach David Kalnischkies <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2013.01.25.0020 +1300]:
>> > > You can find much of the same discussion in the bugreport requesting
>> > > implementation of this feature in APT: #596097
>> > Thanks for the pointer! I missed this discussion un^Wfortunately.
>> > Anyway, it seems that most people are in favour of this change, and
>> > your message pretty much sums up the reasons.
>> You message was not usless as I never knew about the 100 < P < 500
>> feature, and the need to pin/not pin according to what effect you
>> wanted vs AutomaticUpdates setting. Making this info more widely known
>> would be a useful service so that people get the behaviour they want.
>> (maybe it already is and I'm the only one no-one told, but I doubt it
> Sorta. It is in manpage apt_preferences(5), but...
> Now, complete documentation of the Release files, where the tags you can use
> in repositories to get such nice functionality like ButAutomaticUpdates...
> Does anyone know where such a thing might dwell?
Assuming s/Now/No/ … apt_preferences(5) is in fact the most complete
documentation on this matter as there are only these two flags in regards
to pinning (the other "special" values for pinning should not be made
available to repositories as I described in the original bugreport).
If you on the other hand mean what a Release (and various other) files can
generally contain I would refer you to the discussion we had last year in
May on debian-devel. You can delve into it from #481129 and #671503.
If I remember correctly the short version is: Having an ftp-master approved
debian-policy appendix defining this would be very welcomed, but needs
input from various teams which already have no time to work on all the tasks
they already have … :/