Re: Aptitude Error
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
<bss@iguanasuicide.net> wrote:
> On Friday 30 April 2010 12:10:45 James Stuckey wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <
>>
>> bss@iguanasuicide.net> wrote:
>> > On Friday 30 April 2010 06:16:22 James Stuckey wrote:
>> > > The unstable/sid doesn't have to be comment out. Setting the default
>> > > release will keep the system tracked to, in this case, testing.
>> >
>> > Er, mostly.
>> >
>> > If there is a versioned dependency that can be satisfied from sid but not
>> > testing, you will get the package from sid. This shouldn't happen given
>> > the
>> > way testing is managed, unless you installed at least one package from
>> > sid.
>>
>> I installed eclipse from sid, since there isn't eclipse in testing.
>
> It may have pulling in some dependencies from Sid, then.
>
> I know the official line is to use '-t $something' as arguments to apt-
> get/aptitude for pulling in packages from Sid/experimental/backports, but I
> think it is better to use the '$package=$version' format. (After getting the
> version from something like (apt-cache policy $package).)
>
> My instinct is that '-t $something' effectively increases the priority of all
> packages from the $something repository, which may make the dependency
> resolver pull more from that repository than is absolutely necessary.
If you are running stable
aptitude install <package>/testing
will install <package> from testing and try to satisfy dependencies
from stable whereas
aptittude install -t testing <package>
will install <package> from testing and try to satisfy dependencies
from testing.
I assume that
aptitude install <package>=testing_version
behaves like
aptitude install <package>/testing
and that in both these methods the dependencies might not be satisfied
(I had that problem in December with Firefox 3.6).
Reply to: