On 2015-11-13 12:07:18 +, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> 2015-11-13 11:31 GMT+00:00 Vincent Lefevre :
> > On 2015-11-13 10:59:01 +, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> >>
> >> So when you put packages on hold in testing, say "v1", and "v2"
> >> appears in unstable or testing, the
2015-11-13 11:31 GMT+00:00 Vincent Lefevre :
> On 2015-11-13 10:59:01 +, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
>>
>> So when you put packages on hold in testing, say "v1", and "v2"
>> appears in unstable or testing, the packages don't appear in the bunch
>> of "Upgradable" when there are newer v
On 2015-11-13 10:59:01 +, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> 2015-11-13 2:10 GMT+00:00 Vincent Lefevre :
> > On 2015-11-12 21:57:33 +, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> >> In your example above, using hold also would not install v2 from
> >> testing, and when v4 appears, you notice
2015-11-13 2:10 GMT+00:00 Vincent Lefevre :
> On 2015-11-12 21:57:33 +, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
>> In your example above, using hold also would not install v2 from
>> testing, and when v4 appears, you notice and unhold, and all is well.
>> What's the drawback of using Hold in your
On 2015-11-12 21:57:33 +, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> In your example above, using hold also would not install v2 from
> testing, and when v4 appears, you notice and unhold, and all is well.
> What's the drawback of using Hold in your use-case?
No, when a package is on hold, aptitud
2015-11-12 15:49 GMT+00:00 Vincent Lefevre :
> On 2015-11-12 14:24:10 +, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
>> In the general case, if one is using v9-1 from unstable, v9-2 appears
>> in unstable and v8-2 appears in testing and aptitude allows to forbid
>> both, until it is actually released,
On 2015-11-12 14:24:10 +, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> In the general case, if one is using v9-1 from unstable, v9-2 appears
> in unstable and v8-2 appears in testing and aptitude allows to forbid
> both, until it is actually released, one still doesn't know if the
> problem is going
severity 642030 wishlist
tags 642030 + wontfix
stop
2015-11-12 13:37 GMT+00:00 Vincent Lefevre :
> Control: reopen -1
>
> On 2015-11-12 11:59:15 +, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
>> Even if this worked for multiple versions, if you are unsure in which
>> version the package is going to
On 2015-11-12 14:37:40 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Remember that users can track both testing and unstable, and aptitude
> does not always try to install the latest version. The problem I had
> is that when I did "F" on the unstable version, aptitude then wanted
> to upgrade to the testing vers
Control: reopen -1
On 2015-11-12 11:59:15 +, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> Even if this worked for multiple versions, if you are unsure in which
> version the package is going to fix a problem,
I am sure concerning which version*s* to forbid.
> it is more practical to use the Hold f
Control: found -1 0.6.11-1
On 2011-09-18 20:16:55 +0200, Yann Dirson wrote:
> If I have forbidden a package version in testing, and I see in
> unstable a new version with the bug not fixed, I cannot forbid that
> new one: if I do, the version in testing is not forbidden any more and
> will likely
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.3-4
Severity: normal
If I have forbidden a package version in testing, and I see in
unstable a new version with the bug not fixed, I cannot forbid that
new one: if I do, the version in testing is not forbidden any more and
will likely get installed. Thus I have to w
12 matches
Mail list logo