Re: RFS: vidalia
On Sunday 25 May 2008, David Paleino wrote:
> On Sun, 25 May 2008 17:17:04 +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > I consider such requirement quite suboptimal. [..] 2) even
> > not being officially published, this source package is in the wild and it
> > is a bad idea to just reset its versioning (well unless using epoch which
> > would be compeltely unneeded) since these users who built & installed
> > first version of -1 from mentors won't get the updated one from official
> > mirrors.
> Not true:
> $ apt-cache policy
> Package files:
> 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
> release a=now
> 500 http://ftp.it.debian.org unstable/main Packages
> release o=Debian,a=unstable,l=Debian,c=main
> origin ftp.it.debian.org
> Usually locally installed packages have lower priority than those available
> at repositories.
> When I propose one of my packages to a sponsor, I usually have it installed
> (dpkg -i), and when it gets uploaded, an "apt-get upgrade" replaces it with
> the officially available one.
> This, of course, if version numbers match. If you locally have -2, and the
> repos have -1, it won't be overwritten.
Thanks, I have tried that long before ;-) I'm sure you prefer apt-get install
rather that dpkg -i especially when big and fat dependencies are being
involved, so assume most users will feed and use some sort of local apt
repos. Try ;-) & see the disconnect ?
$ apt-cache policy pkg
*** 1.18.1-1 0
500 http://ftp.XY.debian.org unstable/main Packages
500 file: ./ Packages
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB