On Fre, 2003-01-24 at 14:59, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Since some people seem to thing apt pinning can solve all problems with > outdated packages in stable I want to explain why this is wrong: > > apt pinning is good if you are running testing but need a package (e.g. > a security update) from unstable. > > There are people that use apt pinning to install packages from unstable > on a woody system. This is bad because nearly every installation of a > package from unstable pulls a new libc6 and it's also possible that it > pulls a new Perl and Python. Then some _very_ essential components of > your system are upgraded to the potentially more buggy versions in > unstable.
apt-get tells you beforehand exactly what it's going to do. apt-listchanges even shows you the changelogs so you have a very late point of no return. I claim everybody who accidently upgraded perl deserves it. The only thing that could be better is perhaps that apt-get should display what it's going to install in terms of ... NEW packages ... perl/unstable or so. I often recommend apt pinning if somebody asks about installing woody but wanting newre packages. I'd expect that reading a man page and thinking about what one is going to do is something that everybody learns to do on a unixy system. cheers -- vbi -- get my gpg key here: http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/92082481
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
