Re: The implications of installing from the unstable release
On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 10:03:18 +0100 Matthew Hambley
<matthew@aether.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> libc6:
> Installed: 2.2.5-12
> Candidate: 2.2.5-12
> Version Table:
> *** 2.2.5-12 0
> 500 http://ftp.uk.debian.org unstable/main Packages
> 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
> 2.2.5-10 0
> 500 http://security.debian.org stable/updates/main Packages
> 2.2.5-6 0
> 500 http://ftp.uk.debian.org stable/main Packages
> 990 http://ftp.uk.debian.org testing/main Packages
>
> This appears to show what I would expect. Namely that the testing
> distro has highest priority. This being the case I would have
> expected the 2.2.5-6 version of the package to be un effected by the
> fact that there are more recent versions in both the unstable and
> stable/update distros.
Sorry for butting in mid-thread, but it appears you have stable, testing
and unstable pinned in the 100-1000 bracket.
I don't pretend to fully understand the apt pinning mechanism, but if
you would like to insure that you don't get packages from unstable
accidentally then you should give it a priority less than 100. You can
always get packages from there with apt-get -t unstable.
--
Carlos Sousa
http://vbc.dyndns.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: