David Kalnischkies wrote: > (i guess we simply have a different understanding of version in > this context and therefore different behavior in apt vs. cupt) Yes, seems so. > 2009/11/23 Eugene V. Lyubimkin <jackyf.devel@gmail.com>: >>> - one for each origin/release/distribution (e.g. sid or "") >> I don't understand this one. And anyway it isn't stated anywhere, so it >> doesn't count. > In "The Effect of APT Preferences" it is said: >> The general form assigns a priority to all of the package versions >> in a given distribution (that is, to all the versions of packages that >> are listed in a certain Release file) or to all of the package versions >> coming from a particular Internet site, as identified by the site´s fully >> qualified domain name. > (I have quoted the first few words already in my first mail) That phrase doesn't say anything about the same version entry treating is multiple ones, one for each Packages which it belongs to. > So why it is not stated somewhere and therefore doesn't count? > The versions from a different distribution/origin doesn't have a pin > assigned yet, so another pin-setting can match them. Yes, for cupt they all are the same version (which I considered natural). This concept is one of libcupt's cornerstones. Jean-Christophe, now it's up to you to decide which point you support. If the bug got reassigned to libcupt in the end, I will mark it 'wontfix'. I don't want to play reassigning ping-pong as well. -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature