Your message dated Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:15:23 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#213718: apt: ignores release tags also
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 2 Oct 2003 08:51:43 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 02 03:51:42 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from imap.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net) [213.165.64.20]
by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1A4zBV-0000zM-00; Thu, 02 Oct 2003 03:51:41 -0500
Received: (qmail 16693 invoked by uid 65534); 2 Oct 2003 08:51:38 -0000
Received: from pD9E611FA.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO gmxpro.net) (217.230.17.250)
by mail.gmx.net (mp009) with SMTP; 02 Oct 2003 10:51:38 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1574766
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 10:51:36 +0200
From: Tomas Capdevila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20030918
X-Accept-Language: en, de, es
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: apt apt-utils: ignores existing /etc/apt/preferences
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_01,HAS_PACKAGE
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_10_1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_10_1
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: apt apt-utils
Version: 0.5.14 (not installed)
Severity: important
ignores existing /etc/apt/preferences with entries like:
Package: gthumb
Pin: version 0.13-*
Package: xlibmesa-gl-dev
Pin: version 4.1.0-16
Package: xlibmesa-glu-dev
Pin: version 4.1.0-16
Bye,
Tomas
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux hazel 2.4.21-4-686 #1 Sat Aug 2 23:27:25 EST 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 213718-done) by bugs.debian.org; 16 Oct 2003 16:40:00 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 16 11:39:51 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from blacksheep.csh.rit.edu [129.21.60.6]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1AABAF-0008Nf-00; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:39:51 -0500
Received: from dijkstra (dijkstra.csh.rit.edu [129.21.60.152])
by blacksheep.csh.rit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP
id ECA5B3FA; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:39:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mdz by dijkstra with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 1A8NKt-0005Jo-00; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:15:23 -0400
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:15:23 -0400
From: Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Gerhard Kroder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#213718: apt: ignores release tags also
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Sender: Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.6 required=4.0
tests=DATE_IN_PAST_96_XX,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_10_13
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_10_13
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 06:33:10PM +0200, Gerhard Kroder wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> >>Package: *
> >>Pin: release a=testing
> >>Pin-Priority=600
> >>
> >>Package: *
> >>Pin: release a=sid
> >>Pin-Priority=100
> >>
> >>
> >
> >You want a=unstable here, not a=sid.
> >
> Hmm, i was curious about that, but since it worked for months with
> a=sid i left it. Is it some {policy|rule|habit|...} to use unstable
> instead of sid? And why does an "apt-cache policy" report sid instead
> of unstable?
It needs to match what is in the Release file found at the location
specified in sources.list. The official Debian archive Release file says
"unstable", not "sid".
> Anyway, this doesn't solve the problem of ignoring preferences:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache policy apt
> >apt:
> > Installed: 0.5.14
> > Candidate: 0.5.14
> > Version Table:
> > *** 0.5.14 0
> > 500 file: sarge/main Packages
> > 500 http://ftp.de.debian.org sarge/main Packages
> > 500 http://ftp.de.debian.org sid/main Packages
> > 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
> >W: No priority (or zero) specified for pin
> >W: No priority (or zero) specified for pin
>
>
>
>
> Warnings about no/zero specified priorities, so apt seems to set default
> 500 instead of using configured 600/100 for sarge/sid. Worse, apt tries
> to upgrade to newest seen package (i.e. sid's packages):
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache policy bash
> >bash:
> > Installed: 2.05b-8.1
> > Candidate: 2.05b-10
> > Version Table:
> > 2.05b-10 0
> > 500 http://ftp.de.debian.org sid/main Packages
> > *** 2.05b-8.1 0
> > 500 file: sarge/main Packages
> > 500 http://ftp.de.debian.org sarge/main Packages
> > 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
> >W: No priority (or zero) specified for pin
> >W: No priority (or zero) specified for pin
Which is a result of broken syntax in your preferences file. As that
warning message indicates, there was no priority specified.
> >>Pin-Priority=100
Should be:
Pin-Priority: 100
This could not possibly have ever worked.
--
- mdz
