also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.01.17.1124 +0100]:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 08:34:07PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> > Debian's nice in terms of dependency handling, but this really
> > only applies to stable. I wonder why we don't accept the fact
> > that a lot of users run a
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 08:34:07PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> Debian's nice in terms of dependency handling, but this really only
> applies to stable. I wonder why we don't accept the fact that a lot
> of users run a total mixture, like a stable base, with packages from
> testing and unstable
also sprach Travis Crump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.01.05.0330 +0100]:
> The testing/unstable version of aptitude supports 'aptitude -t testing
> install ...'.
Thanks, this is good to know.
I still wonder why aptitude can't fulfill the dependencies.
If I have myapp=1.0 in stable and myapp=2.0 in
martin f krafft wrote:
I can kinda understand why aptitude doesn't do it, and why `apt-get
install -t testing` is the only way to achieve the goal. However,
then again I don't. The above output from aptitude is plain wrong
and all the information necessary to fulfill the dependencies are
there. So
Dear all,
I have been using aptitude for a while now and prefer it greatly to
dselect when it comes to making custom changes to the installation
base of my various systems. All these systems run a mixture of
stable/testing/unstable, and I use pinning to set the default to
either stable or testing.
5 matches
Mail list logo
