On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 22:43:18 +0200, Jakub Narojczyk wrote: > Florian Kulzer napisał(a): > >> To me that looks like the pinning worked and I do not understand how apt >> can think of "upgrading" to the same version. Is your currently >> installed gimp a version from another repository? >> What happens if you ask specifically for gimp: >> apt-get install gimp >> Also, what is the output of >> apt-get check >> and >> apt-get install -sf >> ? > > I've installed all packages only from debian repositores, plus some > multimedia codecs from http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ > > about the rest: > #apt-get install gimp ... installs gimp > > Reading package lists... Done > Building dependency tree... Done > Suggested packages: > libgimp-perl > The following packages will be upgraded: > gimp > 1 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 12 not upgraded. > Need to get 0B/3068kB of archives. > After unpacking 41.0kB of additional disk space will be used. > (Reading database ... 101262 files and directories currently installed.) > Preparing to replace gimp 2.2.13-1 (using .../gimp_2.2.13-1_i386.deb) ... > Unpacking replacement gimp ... > Setting up gimp (2.2.13-1) ... > > > # apt-get check > Reading package lists... Done > Building dependency tree... Done > > # apt-get install -sf > Reading package lists... Done > Building dependency tree... Done > 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 12 not upgraded.
OK, I have to admit that I really don't understand what is going on here. For some reason your apt regarded the gimp 2.2.13-1 package on the server as being different from the gimp 2.2.13-1 that you had installed already and it "upgraded" accordingly. Your package pin cannot prevent this since both are "2.2.13-1". It would interesting to see what "apt-cache policy gimp" produces now, and also "apt-cache show" for one of the "not upgraded" packages, e.g. "apt-cache show gimp-data". -- Regards, | http://users.icfo.es/Florian.Kulzer Florian |
