On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 02:36:05PM +0000, L.V.Gandhi wrote: >On 2/3/06, Magnus Therning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> AFAIK setting APT::Default-Release is an easier way than pinning. >> Personally I avoid pinning as far as possible... >> >> >The exact configuration then depends on which of the three repositories >> >you want to prioritise - i.e. do you want to track stable but having >> >testing/unstable packages available, or do you want to track testing or >> >unstable. >> >> The APT::Default-Release does that too. E.g. I have testing, unstable >> and experimental in my APT source.list. With "APT::Default-Release >> "unstable";" I get the following >> >> % apt-cache policy alsa-utils >> alsa-utils: >> Installed: (none) >> Candidate: 1.0.10-1 >> Version table: >> 1.0.10+1.0.11rc2-1 0 >> 1 http://ftp.uk.debian.org experimental/main Packages >> 1.0.10-1 0 >> 500 http://ftp.uk.debian.org testing/main Packages >> 990 http://ftp.uk.debian.org unstable/main Packages >> >> So "apt-get install alsa-utils" will install the package from unstable, >> while experimental and testing is available. I need pinning to keep a >> package in testing from being upgraded to unstable though. > >What are the pros and cons of using mixed packages?
Well, in my case I want mutt-ng and it's not in unstable yet :-) /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://therning.org/magnus Software is not manufactured, it is something you write and publish. Keep Europe free from software patents, we do not want censorship by patent law on written works. Some operating systems are called 'user friendly', Linux however is 'expert friendly'.
pgp6vrm97ayyB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
