The methodology you used to install your packages should be OK, as long as there isn't a hidden (i.e. not spelled out in the package description) dependency on a particular version of another package.
The reason there aren't multiple binary distributions (stable, unstable, testing, etc.) was because the target audience for Fink is somewhat different than that of Debian: MacOS users vs. Linux users.
The /stable and /unstable shortcuts do sound like a useful idea to me, though I usually run all unstable--since I come from a Linux background, I'm well aware of the pitfalls.
--
Alexander Hansen
Levitated Dipole Experiment
http://www.psfc.mit.edu/LDX
On Jan 12, 2004, at 1:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank you for your response.
[] Here's what's wrong with the approach you took: [] [] 1) Modifying sources.list does nothing: the line you commented out [] just makes the packages from the unstable tree that you have built [] yourself known as a source to apt.
I "_UN_commented" the line out and only did so because the fink.conf manpage said keep sources.list in sync with Trees.
[] 2) The order of the Trees: line in fink.conf also does nothing for
[] you: the highest-numbered version is always what is selected. The
[] order only matters when you have two packages with the same version and
[] revision in different branches (stable vs unstable).
That is a shame.
When I was using debian linux (1997-2003), I setup sources.list so I could easily install packages by default from testing then pickup any unstable ones.
This would be a powerful feature to add to fink. It would be nice to have the "/stable" and "/unstable" shortcuts after the package names so fully qualified names don't always have to be typed.
[] If you really want to install the minimum number of unstable packages,
[] consult the FAQ:
[]
[] http://fink.sourceforge.net/faq/usage-fink.php#unstable
[]
[] The last paragraph of that section is what you want.
OK.
I tried something different and I hope it will work. Opinions on it would be greatly appreciated. I only care about 2 packages from unstable at the moment:
nmh
fetchmail
neither had any dependencies upon any other package in unstable. so I just did a 'fink install' of them and when that finished I just switch my fink.conf and sources.list back to the original stable-only verions.
For these two packages, would this installation be problematic?
Regards, dcj
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software. Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms. Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html _______________________________________________ Fink-beginners mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-beginners
