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? -- L.V.Gandhi http://lvgandhi.tripod.com/ linux user No.205042