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

Re: how to get k3b back in testing (yes, this sounds familiar)



Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 02:03:09PM -0500, H.S. wrote:
> 
>>kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
>>
>>>H.S. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>So, while Testing is going through this whole lot of transition to newer
>>>>packages (KDE 3.4 and Gcc 4.0), I am holding off dist-upgrading it. But
>>>>yesterday, to experiment to see what happens to held back packages if
>>>>k3b is not present, I removed k3b. Saw nothing much has changed so did
>>>>not upgrade at all. So, to get k3b back, what do I do? I know it is not
>>>>there anymore in Testing. Where can I find it's last deb package for
>>>>Testing?
>>>>
>>>>->HS
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>
>>>Just briefly change your sources to unstable, install k3b, change the
>>>sources back to testing after that. This is a workaround and is not the
>>>most elegant solution out there. You might also take a look at
>>>apt-pinning - which has its own advantages and disadvantages...
>>>
>>>bye
>>>raju
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I guess installing k3b from unstable is not going to work. It needs a
>>whole lot of other packages from unstable to do this. I used "apt-get -t
>>unstable -s install k3b" to try this out.
>>
>>So, I guess the safest bet would be to get the k3b.deb package that was
>>in testing from someplace.
>>
> 
> 
> You can try looking at snapshot.debian.net.  You can also grab the
> sources (the .dsc, .diff.gz and .orig.tar.gz) from Sid and backport
> them.  You can use by Debian package customization HOWTO as a guide:
> http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto/howtos/debcustomize
> 
> Backporting is basically a recompile from a newer release to an older
> release.  This occasionally necessitates some tweaking of
> build-dependencies.  However, this is normally not necassry, unless
> somehting like a C++ ABI trasition has occurred.
> 
> -Roberto
> 

Yup, that is what my brother told me too. I have now k3b v. 0.11.20-2
installed.

regards,
->HS




Reply to: