Re: X affecting console text color?? [solved]
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 14:39:59 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 06/04/08 13:53, Florian Kulzer wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 22:34:04 +0200, Sjoerd Hiemstra wrote:
> [snip]
> >>
> >> Now when I notice that a newer version of xserver-xorg-video-ati has
> >> moved to testing (which, among other places, I can see at
> >> http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xserver-xorg-video-ati.html - thanks to
> >> Kelly Clowers) then I will do an
> >> 'aptitude unhold xserver-xorg-video-ati'
> >> and the usual 'aptitude update' and 'aptitude safe-upgrade'.
> >
> > Do you know aptitude's "forbid-version" command? You can forbid upgrades
> > to specific versions of a package. Then you won't have to check the
> > packages.qa.d.o page to see if a still newer (hopefully fixed) version
> > is available. Aptitude will upgrade to a newer version normally, but it
> > will keep the forbidden version off your system (unless you manually
> > override this again).
>
> Isn't that "pinning"?
If you use pinning to give a low-enough priority to the broken version
of the package and if you make sure that your "Pin: version ..."
criterion will not match future versions of the package then the effect
should indeed be the same. (At least for the vast majority of situations
in which you might use either method; I am sure it is possible to
encounter borderline cases where subtle differences in the approaches
become relevant.) One obvious difference is that pinning affects every
package manager that is based on apt, while forbid-version is specific
to aptitude.
However, forbid-version is much more convenient (especially if you use
aptitude in interactive mode): If I see a scheduled upgrade that I don't
like then all I have to do is move the cursor to it, press "F", and I
can forget about the issue.
--
Regards, | http://users.icfo.es/Florian.Kulzer
Florian |
Reply to: