On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 11:50:51AM -0800, tom arnall wrote: > On Thursday 21 December 2006 11:36, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 09:20:09PM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 11:06:54AM -0800, tom arnall wrote: > > > > > > > > what are the consequences if i don't have an apt.conf in /etc/apt? or > > > > don't have a 'APT::Default-Release <version>' in it? > > > > > > AFAIK apt will try to upgrade your packages to the newest version > > > it knows about. That means, if you have 'stable' and 'testing' in your > > > sources than it would upgrade everything to testing (on a dist-upgrade). > > > If you add unstable than it upgrades to unstable. > > > > based on other parts of this thread and my own anecdotal information, > > I think that is correct. > > > > then what really is the role of apt.conf in terms of tracking the desired part > of the repository? well, if you're running a mixed system you may want to have multiple repositories but specify which one is the default (like maybe you want to pull sources for some packages from sid to recompile on your sarge system -- effectively making your own backports). you can also control all sorts of other apt behaviors. man apt.conf so, have we settled your issue for you? I know you were worried about package churn breaking your system... A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature