Re: APT::Default-Release doesn't seem to affect upgrades
On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 11:33:08AM -0700, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 10:57:31PM -0800, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > Don't think so. apt-cache policy shows one unstable entry, priority
> > 50.
> >
> > Maybe there is an upgrade that depends on an uninstalled package that
> > is only in unstable. And then the presence of that package pulls in
> > others?
> >
> > Some results:
> > apt-get upgrade does nothing
> > apt-get -t unstable upgrade pulls in lots
> > apt-get dist-upgrade wants to upgrade
> > gaim gedit ghex gnome-session gnomeicu grip libdate-calc-perl libfnlib0 libgnomedb-dev
> > libgnomedb0 libgtk2.0-0 libhtml-format-perl libmail-mbox-messageparser-perl libofx0c102
> > libqt2 libxft2 libxine1 pan
> > and install quite a few new packages.
> > apt-get -t unstable dist-upgrade is massive
>
> This is all as expected. With the first you've asked apt to _upgrade_
> your system. The man page states the following for _upgrade_:
>
> under no circumstances are currently installed packages removed,
> or packages not already installed retrieved and installed
>
> With the second you've changed your default release to unstable, thereby
> increasing it's priority for this run to 990. As a result, it's going
> to attempt to upgrade everything that's already installed to the version
> available in unstable.
>
> With the last command you've asked apt to _dist-upgrade_ which is
> defined in the man page as:
>
> in addition to performing the function of upgrade, also intelligently
> handles changing dependencies with new versions of packages; apt-get
> has a "smart" conflict resolution system, and it will attempt to
> upgrade the most important packages at the expense of less important
> ones if necessary.
>
It was mostly as I expected, but the part that is surprising to me is
that apt-get -s dist-upgrade pulled in unstable packages when unstable
was pinned at 50. I did offer one theory above, but don't have much
confidence in it.
Reply to: