[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#308445: apt preference does not match 'Archive:' line in Release files anymore



> But it's not clear whether it's normal that most primary mirrors
> use this tag and not Suite for section-specific Release files.

Maybe because the apt_preferences manpage still only mentions the
'Archive:' line?

>From the current stable apt version (0.7.20.2+lenny1):

  Unlike the Packages file, nearly all of the lines in a Release
  file are relevant for setting APT priorities:

  the Archive: line
    names the archive to which all the packages in the directory tree
    belong. For example, the line "Archive: stable" specifies that all
    of the packages in the directory tree below the parent of the
    Release file are in a stable archive. Specifying this value in the
    APT preferences file would require the line:

      Pin: release a=stable

This worked up to apt version 0.5 but obviously does not work
anymore since apt version 0.6.

Even the debian people themself seem not to know about this change
in the behaviour of apt as the volatile.debian.org repository still
tries to use the 'Archive:' line to distinguish between the 'volatile'
and 'volatile-sloppy' trees (see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-volatile/2007/06/msg00004.html).

http://volatile.debian.org/debian-volatile/dists/lenny/volatile/main/binary-i386/Release:
Archive: lenny
Component: main
Origin: volatile.debian.org
Label: debian-volatile
Architecture: i386

http://volatile.debian.org/debian-volatile/dists/lenny/volatile-sloppy/main/binary-i386/Release:
Archive: lenny-sloppy
Component: main
Origin: volatile.debian.org
Label: debian-volatile
NotAutomatic: yes
Architecture: i386

When you have the volatile repository in your sources file you
easily can check it with 'apt-cache policy'. Both - volatile and
volatile-sloppy - give the same pin line.

> OK, it looks like this bug may not be an APT bug.

At least it's an inconsistency between apt and it's
documentation. So either apt or the documentation should be
fixed.

Regards

Uwe



Reply to: