use stable/unstable source at the same time
Hi, could I use stable and unstable sources list at the same time as this in /etc/apt/sources.list? deb ftp://ftp.linuxforum.net/debian/ stable maindeb ftp://ftp.linuxforum.net/debian/ unstable main
Re: use stable/unstable source at the same time
could I use stable and unstable sources list at the same time as this in /etc/apt/sources.list? deb ftp://ftp.linuxforum.net/debian/ stable main deb ftp://ftp.linuxforum.net/debian/ unstable main Yes. I think you should include testing as well. Then you need to put *one* of the following lines in /etc/apt/apt.conf APT::Default-Release stable; APT::Default-Release testing; APT::Default-Release unstable; -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: use stable/unstable source at the same time
On 03/02/06, Adam Funk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: could I use stable and unstable sources list at the same time as this in /etc/apt/sources.list? deb ftp://ftp.linuxforum.net/debian/ stable main deb ftp://ftp.linuxforum.net/debian/ unstable main Yes. I think you should include testing as well. Then you need to put *one* of the following lines in /etc/apt/apt.conf APT::Default-Release stable; APT::Default-Release testing; APT::Default-Release unstable; My understanding was that if you have more than two repositories then it is better to use pinning, using /etc/apt/preferences, so you can set different priorities for each of the non-default releases. 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.
Re: use stable/unstable source at the same time
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 10:11:53AM +, John Halton wrote: On 03/02/06, Adam Funk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: could I use stable and unstable sources list at the same time as this in /etc/apt/sources.list? deb ftp://ftp.linuxforum.net/debian/ stable main deb ftp://ftp.linuxforum.net/debian/ unstable main Yes. I think you should include testing as well. Then you need to put *one* of the following lines in /etc/apt/apt.conf APT::Default-Release stable; APT::Default-Release testing; APT::Default-Release unstable; My understanding was that if you have more than two repositories then it is better to use pinning, using /etc/apt/preferences, so you can set different priorities for each of the non-default releases. 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. /M -- Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://therning.org/magnus Software is not manufactured, it is something you write and publish. Keep Europe free from software patents, we do not want censorship by patent law on written works. The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true. -- Albert Einstein pgp2kBEFVwM3o.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: use stable/unstable source at the same time
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 12:00:10 +0100, Magnus Therning wrote: On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 10:11:53AM +, John Halton wrote: On 03/02/06, Adam Funk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [edit-delete] My understanding was that if you have more than two repositories then it is better to use pinning, using /etc/apt/preferences, so you can set different priorities for each of the non-default releases. 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. Isn't the last line you wrote one of the things poster John H. was writing about when suggested pining was better for a mixed system? If you need to pin anything, you need to understand how to pin, so why avoid pining as much as possibble? I know pining can be confusing because I am new at this myself but learning how to hold packages with pinning and set priorities for upgrade of certain packages seems to me to be important for someone running a mixed system, which is generally considered an advanced concept. I'm not condeming your answer, just trying to understand. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: use stable/unstable source at the same time
On 2006-02-03, John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My understanding was that if you have more than two repositories then it is better to use pinning, using /etc/apt/preferences, so you can set different priorities for each of the non-default releases. 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. I think that's what I'm doing with this line in apt.conf: APT::Default-Release testing; so `aptitude install foo` will install the testing version by default, but if I specifically want something else I can use options to get what I want. (I have a big preferences file but it's entirely produced by apt-listbugs.) I would like to take this opportunity to ask for clarification about something. Given my apt.conf line above, is the difference between these (1) aptitude install foo/unstable (2) aptitude -t unstable install foo that (1) will get the unstable version of foo but the testing versions of any unsatisfied dependencies, whereas (2) will get the unstable versions of foo's dependencies and foo itself? Thanks, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: use stable/unstable source at the same time
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
Re: use stable/unstable source at the same time
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 02:36:05PM +, L.V.Gandhi wrote: 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? Well, in my case I want mutt-ng and it's not in unstable yet :-) /M -- Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://therning.org/magnus Software is not manufactured, it is something you write and publish. Keep Europe free from software patents, we do not want censorship by patent law on written works. Some operating systems are called 'user friendly', Linux however is 'expert friendly'. pgp6vrm97ayyB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: use stable/unstable source at the same time
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 04:14:31AM -0800, Rodney wrote: On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 12:00:10 +0100, Magnus Therning wrote: On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 10:11:53AM +, John Halton wrote: On 03/02/06, Adam Funk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [edit-delete] My understanding was that if you have more than two repositories then it is better to use pinning, using /etc/apt/preferences, so you can set different priorities for each of the non-default releases. 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. Isn't the last line you wrote one of the things poster John H. was writing about when suggested pining was better for a mixed system? If you need to pin anything, you need to understand how to pin, so why avoid pining as much as possibble? I know pining can be confusing because I am new at this myself but learning how to hold packages with pinning and set priorities for upgrade of certain packages seems to me to be important for someone running a mixed system, which is generally considered an advanced concept. I'm not condeming your answer, just trying to understand. From John H's post: My understanding was that if you have more than two repositories then it is better to use pinning, using /etc/apt/preferences, so you can set different priorities for each of the non-default releases. I understood that as use pinning to set priorities when you have more than two repositories. I thing that statement isn't very good. I think APT::Default-Release is easier to use to pick the preferred release and pinning is only necessary to control individual packages' upgrade policy. The output from 'apt-cache policy' was meant to show that apt does the right thing when APT::Default-Release is set. /M -- Magnus Therning(OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://therning.org/magnus Software is not manufactured, it is something you write and publish. Keep Europe free from software patents, we do not want censorship by patent law on written works. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. -- Albert Einstein pgptNbkJL1xET.pgp Description: PGP signature
