Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
Why isn't the order of Trees important?
This has annoyed me, too. I seem to remember someone saying that it is now, since one of the recent shakeups, the *reverse* order of the Trees line that is used. If true, I would consider this a serious bug.
Fink always picks the newest epoch/version/revision tuple regardless of tree order. The only time tree order matters is if you somehow happen to have 2 different versions of the same versioned package in different trees (which shouldn't happen unless you messed with a package and put it in local, in which case you reap what you sow).
If you want to install a specific version, you do "fink install foo-0.1-1".
If you want it to never upgrade you, then your options are to not run unstable, or hack the old package to have a newer epoch and put it in your local tree, but you'll never get upgrades again until things happen to match up epoch-wise.
Or don't run "update-all" if you don't want all packages updated. ;)
-- Benjamin Reed a.k.a. Ranger Rick -- http://ranger.befunk.com/ gpg: 6401 D02A A35F 55E9 D7DD 71C5 52EF A366 D3F6 65FE Is freedom really slavery, Mister Reed? Is this bug really a feature, Mister Reed?
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
