Hi, On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 11:42:37PM -0700, Robert Holtzman wrote: > On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 08:43:28PM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > On 2011-05-15 19:00:03 Robert Holtzman wrote: > > >On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 02:47:30PM -0700, Freeman wrote: > > >> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 02:05:29PM -0700, Robert Holtzman wrote: > > >> > According to the backports instructions site in order to get updates in > > >> > Lenny it's necessary to add pinning. There's another statement that > > >> > this isn't required for Squeeze. Does Squeeze backports get updated > > >> > along with the other repos via "apt-get update"? > > >> > > >> My squeeze-backports priority drops to 100 without pinning, while squeeze > > >> is 990--apparently the /etc/apt/apt.conf Default-Release setting. > > >> > > >> I believe 990 is necessary to prioritize a package above an equal version > > >> of the target release or the installed version. > > > > > >What about the statement on the backport instruction site to the effect > > >that the pinning step is not required for Squeeze? > > > > In Lenny and before, without pinning or default-release, the master archive > > would be priority 500 and the backports archive would be priority 1. At > > priority 1 apt is willing to install the package, but will not upgrade to > > it. > > This meant that, if a package was installed from backports, then backports > > received a security update, the security update would not be installed > > through > > an apt upgrade. > > > > In Squeeze and after, without pinning or default-release, the master > > archive > > will still be priority 500 and the backports archive will be priority 1. > > At > > priority 100, apt is will to both install and upgrade the package. This > > means > > that, if a package is installed from backports, then backports receives a > > security update, the security update will be installed through an apt > > upgrade. > > That's the flavor I got from reading the site. > > > > You can use (apt-cache policy $package) to determine versions and pinning > > for > > a package. It will look something like this: > > aptitude: > > Installed: $inst_ver > > Candidate: $upgrade_ver > > Version table: > > $bpo_ver 0 > > $bpo_pri http://127.0.0.1/debian-backports/ stable-backports/main > > amd64 Packages > > *** $stbl_ver 0 > > $stbl_pri http://127.0.0.1/debian/ stable/main amd64 Packages > > 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status > > > > $bpo_pri is 1 in Lenny (and pre-) and 100 in Squeeze (and post). > > $stbl_pri is 500 without default-release and 990 with. > > If you are using pinning to change these, read and understand the > > appropriate > > man page. > > > > If $inst_ver is "(Not Installed)" or <= $stbl_ver then $upgrade_ver will be > > the highest one of the ones with the highest priority. That is, $stbl_ver > > in > > both Lenny and Squeeze. > > > > If $stbl_ver < $inst_ver <= $bpo_ver then $upgrade_ver will be $inst_ver in > > Lenny (100 > 1) but it will be $bpo_ver (100 == 100) in Squeeze. > > > > Full details of how the candidate is chosen is documented in the > > apt_preferences(5) manpage.
Hmmm.... not the apt_preferences(5) manpage in squeeze tell us all. It is missing ButAutomaticUpgrades which makes pin to 100. http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch02.en.html#_tweaking_candidate_version Hmmm. I may have to file bug report to apt_preferences(5) Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110517144139.ga11...@debian.org