Re: Apt pinning.
On Mon 29 Nov 2021 at 17:33:35 (+0000), Tim Woodall wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021, The Wanderer wrote:
> >
> > Is there a reason you're using '+' as your separator?
> >
> Yes - because, for example, squid I'm building with extra settings so I
> want my version to be higher than the corresponding buster/bullseye
> version. There is no backporting involved.
>
> > I think this looks like exactly the sort of scenario which '~' is
> > intended for.
> >
> But I didn't know ~ was different. Indeed, for packages I've backported
> and want return to mainline eventually it sounds like what I should be
> doing for backported packages.
[ … ]
> Indeed, sounds perfect. Thank you. I'll have to rework my scripts so I
> can choose ~ or + depending on whether I'm backporting a higher version
> from a future release or patching the current release.
>
> I already have config for $source_distribution and $target_distribution
> so I might be able to automate the patch version.
>
> Thats the bit of magic I needed. Thanks!
Using these schemes will put your patched versions at the mercy of
any other versions entering the repositories: apt will try to upgrade
them as soon as a higher version number is seen.
You originally wrote "What I want this to do is hold any package in my
local repository even if a newer version is present in debian" and
"Were a new buster build to happen ([ … ]) I'd want my local version
to stay until I patch the new version" which appears to contradict
the above.
My epoch: method was in answer to your original post, and not the
discussion of pinning and upstream-version-debian-revisions that
has followed. I illustrated what epochs can do, and I'll leave it
at that, because it's unsuitable for what you now appear to need.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: