Re: use stable/unstable source at the same time
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 12:00:10 +0100, Magnus Therning wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 10:11:53AM +0000, John Halton wrote:
>>On 03/02/06, Adam Funk <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>My understanding was that if you have more than two repositories then it
>>is better to use pinning, using /etc/apt/preferences, so you can set
>>different priorities for each of the non-default releases.
> AFAIK setting APT::Default-Release is an easier way than pinning.
> Personally I avoid pinning as far as possible...
>>The exact configuration then depends on which of the three repositories
>>you want to prioritise - i.e. do you want to track stable but having
>>testing/unstable packages available, or do you want to track testing or
> The APT::Default-Release does that too. E.g. I have testing, unstable and
> experimental in my APT source.list. With "APT::Default-Release
> "unstable";" I get the following
> % apt-cache policy alsa-utils
> Installed: (none)
> Candidate: 1.0.10-1
> Version table:
> 1.0.10+1.0.11rc2-1 0
> 1 http://ftp.uk.debian.org experimental/main Packages
> 1.0.10-1 0
> 500 http://ftp.uk.debian.org testing/main Packages 990
> http://ftp.uk.debian.org unstable/main Packages
> So "apt-get install alsa-utils" will install the package from unstable,
> while experimental and testing is available. I need pinning to keep a
> package in testing from being upgraded to unstable though.
Isn't the last line you wrote one of the things poster John H. was
writing about when suggested pining was better for a mixed system? If you
need to pin anything, you need to understand how to pin, so why "avoid
pining as much as possibble"? I know pining can be confusing because I am
new at this myself but learning how to hold packages with pinning and set
priorities for upgrade of certain packages seems to me to be important for
someone running a mixed system, which is generally considered an advanced
concept. I'm not condeming your answer, just trying to understand.