Bug#100931: marked as done (incorrect handling of Pin-Priority in /etc/apt/preferences)
Your message dated Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:38:10 -0600 (MDT)
with message-id <[🔎] Pine.LNX.3.96.1010614213623.29670B-100000@wakko.deltatee.com>
and subject line Bug#100931: incorrect handling of Pin-Priority in /etc/apt/preferences
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Jun 2001 02:51:49 +0000
>From mikew@cortexebusiness.com.au Thu Jun 14 21:51:49 2001
Return-path: <mikew@cortexebusiness.com.au>
Received: from cortex-gw.magna.com.au (smtp.cortexebusiness.com.au) [::ffff:203.174.140.214]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 15Aji8-0006dM-00; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:51:49 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by smtp.cortexebusiness.com.au (8.10.0/8.10.0) id f5F2pW824372
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:51:32 +1000 (EST)
Received: from chunky.int.cortexebusiness.com.au(192.168.1.9)
via SMTP by ctx00., id smtpdAAApPaiDV; Fri Jun 15 12:51:27 2001
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by chunky.int.cortexebusiness.com.au (8.10.0/8.10.0) id f5F2pRL19507
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:51:27 +1000 (EST)
Received: from griffin.int.cortexebusiness.com.au(192.168.5.11)
via SMTP by chunky.int.cortexebusiness.com.au, id smtpdAAA7GaacM; Fri Jun 15 12:51:23 2001
Received: from byrd.int.cortexebusiness.com.au (byrd.int.cortexebusiness.com.au [192.168.5.14])
by griffin.int.cortexebusiness.com.au (Postfix on SuSE Linux 7.0 (i386)) with ESMTP id 0BD6A24E31
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:51:22 +1000 (EST)
Sender: mikew@byrd.int.cortexebusiness.com.au
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: incorrect handling of Pin-Priority in /etc/apt/preferences
From: Mike Williams <mikew@cortexebusiness.com.au>
Date: 15 Jun 2001 12:51:21 +1000
Message-ID: <[🔎] m3g0d2jw0m.fsf@byrd.int.cortexebusiness.com.au>
Lines: 66
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Package: apt
Version: 0.5.3
I'm trying to set a Pin-Priority for the "unstable" release, so that
apt-get doesn't ungrade me to "unstable" packages automatically. However,
it is still using the default priority (500) for some package-lists.
My apt is configured as follows:
,--- /etc/apt/sources.list ---
|
| deb http://ftp.au.debian.org/pub/debian testing main contrib non-free
| deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US testing/non-US main contrib non-free
|
| deb http://ftp.au.debian.org/pub/debian unstable main contrib non-free
| deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US unstable/non-US main contrib non-free
,--- /etc/apt/preferences ---
|
| Package:*
| Pin: release a=testing
| Pin-Priority: 777
|
| Package:*
| Pin: release a=unstable
| Pin-Priority: 33
When I run "apt-get -o Debug::pkgPolicy=true -s upgrade", I get the
following output ...
| Reading Package Lists...
| Prio of /var/lib/dpkg/status 100
| Prio of /var/lib/apt/lists/non-us.debian.org_debian-non-US_dists_unstable_non-US_non-free_binary-i386_Packages 500
| Prio of /var/lib/apt/lists/non-us.debian.org_debian-non-US_dists_unstable_non-US_contrib_binary-i386_Packages 500
| Prio of /var/lib/apt/lists/non-us.debian.org_debian-non-US_dists_unstable_non-US_main_binary-i386_Packages 500
| Prio of /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.au.debian.org_pub_debian_dists_unstable_non-free_binary-i386_Packages 500
| Prio of /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.au.debian.org_pub_debian_dists_unstable_contrib_binary-i386_Packages 500
| Prio of /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.au.debian.org_pub_debian_dists_unstable_main_binary-i386_Packages 500
| Prio of /var/lib/apt/lists/non-us.debian.org_debian-non-US_dists_testing_non-US_non-free_binary-i386_Packages 500
| Prio of /var/lib/apt/lists/non-us.debian.org_debian-non-US_dists_testing_non-US_contrib_binary-i386_Packages 500
| Prio of /var/lib/apt/lists/non-us.debian.org_debian-non-US_dists_testing_non-US_main_binary-i386_Packages 500
| Prio of /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.au.debian.org_pub_debian_dists_testing_non-free_binary-i386_Packages 500
| Prio of /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.au.debian.org_pub_debian_dists_testing_contrib_binary-i386_Packages 500
| Prio of /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.au.debian.org_pub_debian_dists_testing_main_binary-i386_Packages 500
| Prio of /var/lib/dpkg/status 100
| Prio of /var/lib/apt/lists/non-us.debian.org_debian-non-US_dists_unstable_non-US_non-free_binary-i386_Packages 33
| Prio of /var/lib/apt/lists/non-us.debian.org_debian-non-US_dists_unstable_non-US_contrib_binary-i386_Packages 33
| Prio of /var/lib/apt/lists/non-us.debian.org_debian-non-US_dists_unstable_non-US_main_binary-i386_Packages 33
| Prio of /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.au.debian.org_pub_debian_dists_unstable_non-free_binary-i386_Packages 500
| Prio of /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.au.debian.org_pub_debian_dists_unstable_contrib_binary-i386_Packages 500
| Prio of /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.au.debian.org_pub_debian_dists_unstable_main_binary-i386_Packages 500
| Prio of /var/lib/apt/lists/non-us.debian.org_debian-non-US_dists_testing_non-US_non-free_binary-i386_Packages 777
| Prio of /var/lib/apt/lists/non-us.debian.org_debian-non-US_dists_testing_non-US_contrib_binary-i386_Packages 777
| Prio of /var/lib/apt/lists/non-us.debian.org_debian-non-US_dists_testing_non-US_main_binary-i386_Packages 777
| Prio of /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.au.debian.org_pub_debian_dists_testing_non-free_binary-i386_Packages 777
| Prio of /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.au.debian.org_pub_debian_dists_testing_contrib_binary-i386_Packages 500
| Prio of /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.au.debian.org_pub_debian_dists_testing_main_binary-i386_Packages 500
| Building Dependency Tree...
| ...
Note that several of the package-lists are ending up with default priority
(500). Based on my /etc/apt/preferences, I was expecting that all
package-lists would be assigned either 33 or 777.
--
Mike
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 100931-done) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Jun 2001 03:38:21 +0000
>From jgg@debian.org Thu Jun 14 22:38:21 2001
Return-path: <jgg@debian.org>
Received: from crack-ext.ab.videon.ca [::ffff:206.75.216.33]
by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 15AkRB-00082h-00; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:38:21 -0500
Received: (qmail 8945 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2001 03:38:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO wakko.deltatee.com) ([24.108.173.63]) (envelope-sender <jgg@debian.org>)
by crack-ext.ab.videon.ca (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
for <mikew@cortexebusiness.com.au>; 15 Jun 2001 03:38:11 -0000
Received: from localhost
([127.0.0.1] helo=wakko.deltatee.com ident=jgg)
by wakko.deltatee.com with smtp (Exim 3.16 #1 (Debian))
id 15AkR1-0007ln-00; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:38:11 -0600
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:38:10 -0600 (MDT)
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@debian.org>
X-Sender: jgg@wakko.deltatee.com
To: Mike Williams <mikew@cortexebusiness.com.au>, 100931-done@bugs.debian.org
cc: APT Development Team <deity@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#100931: incorrect handling of Pin-Priority in /etc/apt/preferences
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] m3g0d2jw0m.fsf@byrd.int.cortexebusiness.com.au>
Message-ID: <[🔎] Pine.LNX.3.96.1010614213623.29670B-100000@wakko.deltatee.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Delivered-To: 100931-done@bugs.debian.org
On 15 Jun 2001, Mike Williams wrote:
> I'm trying to set a Pin-Priority for the "unstable" release, so that
> apt-get doesn't ungrade me to "unstable" packages automatically. However,
> it is still using the default priority (500) for some package-lists.
This is a flaw with ftp.au.debian.org. If you inspect
/var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.au.debian.org_pub_debian_dists_unstable_main_binary-i386_Release
You'll notice it has all kinds of HTML crap in it, which of course screws
up the parsing of the file, and thus the policy mechanism. You should
email the admin and have him correct that.
Jason
Reply to: