Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #239993

Re: Package priority puzzlement

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

> I hope the pointer to the matching priorities on the two different
> repositories was a helpful hint.
>
> -- 
>     The Wanderer

Yes... i suppose that explains the behavior.  Except this seems to mean 
that setting APT::Default-Release "stable" in apt.conf has no effect.
Before my previous installation got corrupted, i had an 
/etc/apt/preferences file where i'd set the priorities for testing above 
sid above stable.
Without that file, though, i don't see what effect the Default-Release 
is having.

So i stuck some appropriate priorities in /etc/apt/preferences (stable 
above testing above sid) and it now behaves as i expect.
*Except*... not when i use aptitude... only apt-get.  Using aptitude 
(which i try to do exclusively) it behaves exactly the same way with or 
without:

> Explanation: This is a comment line
> Package: *
> Pin: release a=unstable
> Pin-Priority: 750
>
> Package: *
> Pin: release a=testing
> Pin-Priority: 850
>
> Package: *
> Pin: release a=stable
> Pin-Priority: 900

Thanks for getting me past being fixed on thinking that specifying 
"stable" as the default release should do something.
Now to figure out why aptitude seems to ignore this file.

Also, yes, i usually use "shortcuts" for all those aptitude commands.
And the package has a broken dependency (wrongly, it seems to me), 
because that's what the 'B' means in the flags output.

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Package priority puzzlement craig duncan <gunkilatur@gmail.com> - 2021-09-15 01:20 +0200
  Re: Package priority puzzlement The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-09-15 05:00 +0200
    Re: Package priority puzzlement craig duncan <gunkilatur@gmail.com> - 2021-09-15 08:30 +0200
      Re: Package priority puzzlement Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-09-16 06:20 +0200

csiph-web