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

Bug#626433: Does the Debian Reference needs to advise apt-pinning?



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Package: debian-reference
Version: 2.46
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-l10n-french@lists.debian.org

Hi Osamu,

While reviewing translation, Stéphane noticed that “Backports.org” is
still written instead of “backports.debian.org” in /etc/apt/preferences
advices. Furthermore, I do believe that there is no need to use any
apt-pinning trick for backports (nor squeeze-updates) since Squeeze
because default priority value already take care of that now (100 for
backports, and 500 for squeeze-updates packages which will reach the
official archive at the following point release), so instead of fixing
s/Backports.org/backports.debian.org/g, I'd propose to simply delete the
related part (but you may refer to this part as an apt-pinning example,
so maybe you'd prefer another approach).

http://www-staging.debian.org/doc/manuals/reference/ch02#_updates_and_backports

Regards

David

P.-S.: Initial message

Le 11/05/2011 18:13, Stéphane Blondon a écrit :

> Je pense qu'il y a une incohérence dans la version originale de la doc.
> ligne 1263 :
> Pin: release o=Backports.org archive\n"
> ...alors que ligne 1190, on parle de « Pin-Priority » valant
> backports.debian.org. À mon avis, c'est cette URL qui devrait être
> utilisée partout puisque backport est devenu un service officiel. Si
> c'est bien ça, il faudrait remplacer par :
> Pin: release o=backport.debian.org archive\n"
> 
> Quelqu'un pour confirmer/infirmer ?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
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=+A4A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: