Hi, On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 10:06:36PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > I don't see how my system is broken and/or misconfigured. At the end > of the email, you seem to imply that the "broken, misconfigured" part > is that I'm mixing stable and testing/unstable. My understanding is
No, I am implying that a testing system + stable in s.l is broken, > that this has always been supported / allowed (and more generally, > mixing/upgrading from release N and/to release N+1, of which testing > is an "alpha / beta version"), albeit not very well tested. What is stable + testing is as you say OK (but then you are on your own anyways) > No, this is not wrong. It states that this bug is present in version > 1:3.2.1-10, and it is. It does not state anything about past versions, > it does not say past versions don't have this bug, and it does not > state that past versions have this bug. True, nevertheless you blocked other fixes with that. (And if you used testing why didn't you dfile it against testings version?) > >> APT prefers testing > >> APT policy: (600, 'testing'), (600, 'stable'), (500, 'stable'), (300, > >> 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') > > > ... and the above works unless someone has such a broken mix (what has > > "stable" > > to do here?!) which results in two different libdb-devs pointing to > > different > > lidbX.Ys on his system... > > No, they are not "on the system", but available for installation. One They are "on the system" in the sense of apts cache. > could even have a non-Debian repository in /etc/apt/sources.list, that > offers yet another libdb-dev, with a higher (or lower) pin and/or That would be even more broken, imho. For important libs like libdb that is... And will cause people to build against the wrong one.. Anyway, bug already fixed... Grüße/Regards, René -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
