On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 10:35:35AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 11:19:35AM +0200, Alex Polite wrote: > > Package pinning is driving my crazy. Every now and then I just have to > > have something that is only available in testing or unstable. My > > favorite option is to download the source, compile it myself and > > install in /usr/local but every now and then it's a big thing like > > evolution which has a gazillion dependencies. > > > > So I do apt-get -t unstable <package> > > > > Almost without exemption this will lead to hairy dependency > > problems. > > This is a very bad idea, as you've found out. It's much easier to find a > backport (see http://www.apt-get.org/, for instance) or produce one > yourself.
Yep. With deb-src: in sources.list # apt-get build-dep <package> # apt-get -b source <package> # dpkg -i *.deb > I wish pinning didn't exist. It is a good tool to pull-in unstable into testing but ... I have to agree on your feeling to some extent. Once you install any C programs, they pull in latest libc... > > I want to install stable, testing and unstable under separate > > directories. All stable packs, configuration files etc goes under > > /stable, testing packs goes under /testing and so on. > > You could set up chroots like this using debootstrap. (Just be sure to > use the unstable version; earlier versions aren't guaranteed to be able > to install testing or unstable.) You might have to do ssh X forwarding > or something to run X clients from inside the chroot, though. Or UML. But to be honest, upgrade to simple testing or un stable may be easier than doing things like this. :) Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]