Re: APT::Default-Release accepts code-names? (long)

[Andrei Popescu <andreimpopescu@gmail.com>]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 13:54:50 -0800
Andrew Sackville-West <andrew@farwestbilliards.com> wrote:

> > Now 'etch' has priority 990 vs 500 of sid. This will keep the system
> > running *unstable* (when etch is released apt will want to upgrade
> > to next testing).
> 
> ummm... this, as I understand it, is not correct. priority 990 for the
> etch line means that those packages are newer *and* in the target, and
> so will be installed. priority 500 means the packages are newer and

I was thinking about 'testing' but wrote unstable (I'm actually
running sid).

> *NOT* in the target and will not be installed. so this will run "etch"
> not "unstable".  but again, with DefaultRelease pointing to "testing"
> what happens with "etch" in stable? default release points to
> "testing" but none of the sources.list opint to testing, but instead
> to tagged releases. 

I forgot about that. Rephrasing to:

Now 'etch' has priority 990 vs 500 of sid. This will keep the system
running testing, but only until etch is released. If the user doesn't
add a source for the next testing, the Default-Release option will
loose its effect and apt will want to upgrade to unstable.

> IMO, this whole situation is too confusing. default release should
> accept either form as that is much more intuitive and allows that
> wonderful train/platform analogy to actually function properly. 

As Osamu Aoki pointed out, there is an old bug-report about that.

Regards,
Andrei
-- 
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einstein)