Are you really sure that setting the priorities of stable, testing and unstable to 900, 800 and 700, respectively, we would be able to have a mixed system? IMHO, with this configuration, and entries for stable, testing and unstable in sources.list, if a dist-upgrade is run then apt will update every current installed package to the lastest version (if avaiable) in unstable. To be stick on stable we should set priority to some value greater than 1000, but on the other hand in this case we couldn't upgrade unstable packages installed using -t. Am I wrong? Cheers, Bruno. On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 14:59, Lloyd Zusman wrote: > Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.org> writes: > > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 13:25:50 +0100, Thomas Hood wrote: > >> If I am not mistaken, it is possible to avoid this > >> worst case scenario by appropriately setting up apt's > >> preferences. Suppose I set the priorities of distributions > >> as follows > >> stable 900 > >> testing 800 > >> unstable 700 > >> and, starting with a woody system, upgrade a single package > >> foo to version vvv from unstable > >> apt-get -t unstable install foo > >> which pulls in unstable libc6. Later when I do > >> apt-get dist-upgrade > >> apt will upgrade most packages from stable but will > >> upgrade foo from unstable, or from testing if version vvv > >> has made it into testing; and likewise libc6. > > > > There would still be security problems for installed packages that > > are in testing: the upgrade to unstable (to get the fixed package) > > won't be automatical. > > So in that case, what would be the solution? I guess we would have to > know what testing packages have fixes in unstable, and then use the "-t > unstable" option to apt-get ... correct? > > > -- > Lloyd Zusman > ljz@asfast.com -- Bruno Diniz de Paula <diniz@cs.rutgers.edu> Rutgers University
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part