Re: backports updates
On Monday 23 May 2011 00:45:34 Robert Holtzman wrote: On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 03:35:50PM +0100, Lisi wrote: On Monday 16 May 2011 21:18:01 Andrei Popescu wrote: On Lu, 16 mai 11, 20:43:37, Lisi wrote: Vanilla, and untouched by human hand. Exactly as aptitude/debian set it up! I have never dared touch my preferences file. [...] 200 http://backports.debian.org lenny-backports/non-free Packages release o=Debian Backports,a=lenny-backports,l=Debian Backports,c=non-free origin backports.debian.org 200 http://backports.debian.org lenny-backports/contrib Packages release o=Debian Backports,a=lenny-backports,l=Debian Backports,c=contrib origin backports.debian.org 200 http://backports.debian.org lenny-backports/main Packages release o=Debian Backports,a=lenny-backports,l=Debian Backports,c=main origin backports.debian.org backports.d.o has priority 200, while on a squeeze machine it gets only 100. You should inspect /etc/apt/preferences and the contents of /etc/apt/preferences.d/ (if any of these exist). /etc/apt/preferences exists and /etc/apt/preferences.d/ does not. But I am not clear as to the purpose of looking at them? For what it is worth, /ect/apt/preferences says: quote Package: * Pin: release a=lenny-backports Pin-Priority: 200 /quote It agrees with apt-cache policy. Shouldn't it? I seem to remember reaading that the pin-priority for backports should be 100. That's what apt-cache policy shows on my system (squeeze). I still don't see where we are going with this, nor why. :-/ Lenny and Squeeze backports obviously do things differently. Hardly surprising!! Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201105230933.52673.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: backports updates
On Sunday 22 May 2011 23:10:28 Andrei Popescu wrote: On Du, 22 mai 11, 15:35:50, Lisi wrote: For what it is worth, /ect/apt/preferences says: quote Package: * Pin: release a=lenny-backports Pin-Priority: 200 /quote It agrees with apt-cache policy. Shouldn't it? It's just as I expected. As I said, I have set nothing manually. Aptitude set it all up. I seriously doubt that. Have a look at the file date, does it ring any bells? I may be away again for the next 2 days. (But if I go on coughing the way I am now, I may not be!!) Wish you well, Andrei As I said to Robert, I still don't see where we are going with this, nor why. :-/ I don't dare touch things like pinning and do not recall ever having edited a preferences file for apt. I'm far too scared of mucking up my system. I didn't want updated versions either OOo or Firefox that badly!! But, as I have said: where are we going with this and why? Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201105230937.25931.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: backports updates
On Lu, 23 mai 11, 09:37:25, Lisi wrote: I don't dare touch things like pinning and do not recall ever having edited a preferences file for apt. I'm far too scared of mucking up my system. I didn't want updated versions either OOo or Firefox that badly!! But, as I have said: where are we going with this and why? Firstly you mentioned that lenny-backports is priority 200 by default, which is inaccurate. Sorry for insisting on such details, but these discussions are archived... Secondly, I'm not aware of any package messing with /etc/apt/preferences, which would indicate you put it there and just forgot about it. May I suggest installing etckeeper? In it's default configuration it will automatically keep a track of all changes in /etc, which you can review very easily if you wish with (as root): # cd /etc # git log -u If you make any changes and don't want to bother committing them yourself they will be committed automatically before any package install. Committing (recording) changes is not very complicated. Just do as root: # cd /etc # git commit -a -m note about what I just changed The big benefit of committing yourself (vs. automatic commits) is you can easily tell from the commit message what the change was about ;) Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: backports updates
On Monday 23 May 2011 10:18:28 Andrei Popescu wrote: On Lu, 23 mai 11, 09:37:25, Lisi wrote: I don't dare touch things like pinning and do not recall ever having edited a preferences file for apt. I'm far too scared of mucking up my system. I didn't want updated versions either OOo or Firefox that badly!! But, as I have said: where are we going with this and why? Firstly you mentioned that lenny-backports is priority 200 by default, which is inaccurate. Sorry for insisting on such details, but these discussions are archived... Secondly, I'm not aware of any package messing with /etc/apt/preferences, which would indicate you put it there and just forgot about it. May I suggest installing etckeeper? In it's default configuration it will automatically keep a track of all changes in /etc, which you can review very easily if you wish with (as root): # cd /etc # git log -u If you make any changes and don't want to bother committing them yourself they will be committed automatically before any package install. Committing (recording) changes is not very complicated. Just do as root: # cd /etc # git commit -a -m note about what I just changed The big benefit of committing yourself (vs. automatic commits) is you can easily tell from the commit message what the change was about ;) I'm afraid that I can't see the importance of this. I simply know nothing about pinning and don't pretend to. Anyhow, you think that I did, I think that I didn't. This is beginning to sound like a pantomime! And, frankly, I don't care about the issue!! Perhaps if this had started with your saying you must have changed the pinning, because the default in all Debians is 100 we could at least have had a meaningful disagreement!! Anyhow, would you be agreeable to our agreeing that you think that I did, and I think that I didn't?? Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201105231051.21327.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: backports updates (2)
On Monday 23 May 2011 10:18:28 Andrei Popescu wrote: On Lu, 23 mai 11, 09:37:25, Lisi wrote: I don't dare touch things like pinning and do not recall ever having edited a preferences file for apt. I'm far too scared of mucking up my system. I didn't want updated versions either OOo or Firefox that badly!! But, as I have said: where are we going with this and why? Firstly you mentioned that lenny-backports is priority 200 by default, which is inaccurate. Sorry for insisting on such details, but these discussions are archived... Secondly, I'm not aware of any package messing with /etc/apt/preferences, which would indicate you put it there and just forgot about it. May I suggest installing etckeeper? In it's default configuration it will automatically keep a track of all changes in /etc, which you can review very easily if you wish with (as root): # cd /etc # git log -u If you make any changes and don't want to bother committing them yourself they will be committed automatically before any package install. Committing (recording) changes is not very complicated. Just do as root: # cd /etc # git commit -a -m note about what I just changed The big benefit of committing yourself (vs. automatic commits) is you can easily tell from the commit message what the change was about ;) I have in fact gone on niggling at this. And the instructions page clearly says to add those exact lines. I agree with you now. I must have just copied and pasted them without registering them. I clearly do need to add etckeeper as you suggested. At the very least it would reduce the number of times I make a fool of myself. :-( And you are, of course, right that the archives should be kept accurate. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201105231101.47459.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: backports updates
On Monday 23 May 2011 10:51:21 Lisi wrote: On Monday 23 May 2011 10:18:28 Andrei Popescu wrote: On Lu, 23 mai 11, 09:37:25, Lisi wrote: [snip] # git commit -a -m note about what I just changed The big benefit of committing yourself (vs. automatic commits) is you can easily tell from the commit message what the change was about ;) I'm afraid that I can't see the importance of this. I simply know nothing about pinning and don't pretend to. Anyhow, you think that I did, I think that I didn't. This is beginning to sound like a pantomime! And, frankly, I don't care about the issue!! Perhaps if this had started with your saying you must have changed the pinning, because the default in all Debians is 100 we could at least have had a meaningful disagreement!! Anyhow, would you be agreeable to our agreeing that you think that I did, and I think that I didn't?? If I could recall this, I would. For the benefit of the archives I am conpletely in the wrong on this. Sorry, everyone. :-( Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201105231103.52626.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: backports updates (2)
On Lu, 23 mai 11, 11:01:47, Lisi wrote: I have in fact gone on niggling at this. And the instructions page clearly says to add those exact lines. I agree with you now. I must have just copied and pasted them without registering them. I clearly do need to add etckeeper as you suggested. At the very least it would reduce the number of times I make a fool of myself. :-( And you are, of course, right that the archives should be kept accurate. I hope you didn't get this the wrong way and please feel free to ignore any suggestions from my side regarding administering your computer, if you don't find them useful. I just happen to enjoy throwing ideas around, although sometimes I tend to exagerate ;) Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: backports updates
On 05/23/2011 05:18 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote: forgot about it. May I suggest installing etckeeper? In it's default configuration it will automatically keep a track of all changes in /etc, which you can review very easily if you wish with (as root): # cd /etc # git log -u If you make any changes and don't want to bother committing them yourself they will be committed automatically before any package install. Committing (recording) changes is not very complicated. Just do as root: # cd /etc # git commit -a -m note about what I just changed The big benefit of committing yourself (vs. automatic commits) is you can easily tell from the commit message what the change was about ;) Regards, Andrei Many thanks for this information. I'm glad you post ideas like this, because I get to learn about things that I would have missed entirely. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4dda7def.5060...@comcast.net
Re: backports updates (2)
On Monday 23 May 2011 15:02:40 Andrei Popescu wrote: please feel free to ignore any suggestions from my side regarding administering your computer, if you don't find them useful. I just happen to enjoy throwing ideas around, although sometimes I tend to exagerate ;) I knew someone once who got very angry with me that I, as he said, ignored his advice. I told him that I most certainly did not ignore his advice, I weighed it very carefully, along with the rest of the data that I had collected. I just didn't slavishly obey him! You know a lot more than I do about all this. I would be foolish not, at the very least, to take your suggestions very seriously. :-) Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201105231657.22669.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: backports updates
On Monday 16 May 2011 21:18:01 Andrei Popescu wrote: On Lu, 16 mai 11, 20:43:37, Lisi wrote: Vanilla, and untouched by human hand. Exactly as aptitude/debian set it up! I have never dared touch my preferences file. [...] 200 http://backports.debian.org lenny-backports/non-free Packages release o=Debian Backports,a=lenny-backports,l=Debian Backports,c=non-free origin backports.debian.org 200 http://backports.debian.org lenny-backports/contrib Packages release o=Debian Backports,a=lenny-backports,l=Debian Backports,c=contrib origin backports.debian.org 200 http://backports.debian.org lenny-backports/main Packages release o=Debian Backports,a=lenny-backports,l=Debian Backports,c=main origin backports.debian.org backports.d.o has priority 200, while on a squeeze machine it gets only 100. You should inspect /etc/apt/preferences and the contents of /etc/apt/preferences.d/ (if any of these exist). /etc/apt/preferences exists and /etc/apt/preferences.d/ does not. But I am not clear as to the purpose of looking at them? For what it is worth, /ect/apt/preferences says: quote Package: * Pin: release a=lenny-backports Pin-Priority: 200 /quote It agrees with apt-cache policy. Shouldn't it? As I said, I have set nothing manually. Aptitude set it all up. I may be away again for the next 2 days. (But if I go on coughing the way I am now, I may not be!!) Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201105221535.50586.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: backports updates
On Du, 22 mai 11, 15:35:50, Lisi wrote: For what it is worth, /ect/apt/preferences says: quote Package: * Pin: release a=lenny-backports Pin-Priority: 200 /quote It agrees with apt-cache policy. Shouldn't it? It's just as I expected. As I said, I have set nothing manually. Aptitude set it all up. I seriously doubt that. Have a look at the file date, does it ring any bells? I may be away again for the next 2 days. (But if I go on coughing the way I am now, I may not be!!) Wish you well, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: backports updates
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 03:35:50PM +0100, Lisi wrote: On Monday 16 May 2011 21:18:01 Andrei Popescu wrote: On Lu, 16 mai 11, 20:43:37, Lisi wrote: Vanilla, and untouched by human hand. Exactly as aptitude/debian set it up! I have never dared touch my preferences file. [...] 200 http://backports.debian.org lenny-backports/non-free Packages release o=Debian Backports,a=lenny-backports,l=Debian Backports,c=non-free origin backports.debian.org 200 http://backports.debian.org lenny-backports/contrib Packages release o=Debian Backports,a=lenny-backports,l=Debian Backports,c=contrib origin backports.debian.org 200 http://backports.debian.org lenny-backports/main Packages release o=Debian Backports,a=lenny-backports,l=Debian Backports,c=main origin backports.debian.org backports.d.o has priority 200, while on a squeeze machine it gets only 100. You should inspect /etc/apt/preferences and the contents of /etc/apt/preferences.d/ (if any of these exist). /etc/apt/preferences exists and /etc/apt/preferences.d/ does not. But I am not clear as to the purpose of looking at them? For what it is worth, /ect/apt/preferences says: quote Package: * Pin: release a=lenny-backports Pin-Priority: 200 /quote It agrees with apt-cache policy. Shouldn't it? I seem to remember reaading that the pin-priority for backports should be 100. That's what apt-cache policy shows on my system (squeeze). -- Bob Holtzman If you think you're getting free lunch, chech the price of the beer. Key ID: 8D549279 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: backports updates and ButAutomaticUpgrades/NotAutomatic
Hi, On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 11:42:37PM -0700, Robert Holtzman wrote: On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 08:43:28PM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: On 2011-05-15 19:00:03 Robert Holtzman wrote: On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 02:47:30PM -0700, Freeman wrote: On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 02:05:29PM -0700, Robert Holtzman wrote: According to the backports instructions site in order to get updates in Lenny it's necessary to add pinning. There's another statement that this isn't required for Squeeze. Does Squeeze backports get updated along with the other repos via apt-get update? My squeeze-backports priority drops to 100 without pinning, while squeeze is 990--apparently the /etc/apt/apt.conf Default-Release setting. I believe 990 is necessary to prioritize a package above an equal version of the target release or the installed version. What about the statement on the backport instruction site to the effect that the pinning step is not required for Squeeze? In Lenny and before, without pinning or default-release, the master archive would be priority 500 and the backports archive would be priority 1. At priority 1 apt is willing to install the package, but will not upgrade to it. This meant that, if a package was installed from backports, then backports received a security update, the security update would not be installed through an apt upgrade. In Squeeze and after, without pinning or default-release, the master archive will still be priority 500 and the backports archive will be priority 1. At priority 100, apt is will to both install and upgrade the package. This means that, if a package is installed from backports, then backports receives a security update, the security update will be installed through an apt upgrade. That's the flavor I got from reading the site. You can use (apt-cache policy $package) to determine versions and pinning for a package. It will look something like this: aptitude: Installed: $inst_ver Candidate: $upgrade_ver Version table: $bpo_ver 0 $bpo_pri http://127.0.0.1/debian-backports/ stable-backports/main amd64 Packages *** $stbl_ver 0 $stbl_pri http://127.0.0.1/debian/ stable/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $bpo_pri is 1 in Lenny (and pre-) and 100 in Squeeze (and post). $stbl_pri is 500 without default-release and 990 with. If you are using pinning to change these, read and understand the appropriate man page. If $inst_ver is (Not Installed) or = $stbl_ver then $upgrade_ver will be the highest one of the ones with the highest priority. That is, $stbl_ver in both Lenny and Squeeze. If $stbl_ver $inst_ver = $bpo_ver then $upgrade_ver will be $inst_ver in Lenny (100 1) but it will be $bpo_ver (100 == 100) in Squeeze. Full details of how the candidate is chosen is documented in the apt_preferences(5) manpage. Hmmm not the apt_preferences(5) manpage in squeeze tell us all. It is missing ButAutomaticUpgrades which makes pin to 100. http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch02.en.html#_tweaking_candidate_version Hmmm. I may have to file bug report to apt_preferences(5) Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110517144139.ga11...@debian.org
Re: backports updates
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 08:43:28PM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: On 2011-05-15 19:00:03 Robert Holtzman wrote: On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 02:47:30PM -0700, Freeman wrote: On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 02:05:29PM -0700, Robert Holtzman wrote: According to the backports instructions site in order to get updates in Lenny it's necessary to add pinning. There's another statement that this isn't required for Squeeze. Does Squeeze backports get updated along with the other repos via apt-get update? My squeeze-backports priority drops to 100 without pinning, while squeeze is 990--apparently the /etc/apt/apt.conf Default-Release setting. I believe 990 is necessary to prioritize a package above an equal version of the target release or the installed version. What about the statement on the backport instruction site to the effect that the pinning step is not required for Squeeze? In Lenny and before, without pinning or default-release, the master archive would be priority 500 and the backports archive would be priority 1. At priority 1 apt is willing to install the package, but will not upgrade to it. This meant that, if a package was installed from backports, then backports received a security update, the security update would not be installed through an apt upgrade. In Squeeze and after, without pinning or default-release, the master archive will still be priority 500 and the backports archive will be priority 1. At priority 100, apt is will to both install and upgrade the package. This means that, if a package is installed from backports, then backports receives a security update, the security update will be installed through an apt upgrade. That's the flavor I got from reading the site. You can use (apt-cache policy $package) to determine versions and pinning for a package. It will look something like this: aptitude: Installed: $inst_ver Candidate: $upgrade_ver Version table: $bpo_ver 0 $bpo_pri http://127.0.0.1/debian-backports/ stable-backports/main amd64 Packages *** $stbl_ver 0 $stbl_pri http://127.0.0.1/debian/ stable/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $bpo_pri is 1 in Lenny (and pre-) and 100 in Squeeze (and post). $stbl_pri is 500 without default-release and 990 with. If you are using pinning to change these, read and understand the appropriate man page. If $inst_ver is (Not Installed) or = $stbl_ver then $upgrade_ver will be the highest one of the ones with the highest priority. That is, $stbl_ver in both Lenny and Squeeze. If $stbl_ver $inst_ver = $bpo_ver then $upgrade_ver will be $inst_ver in Lenny (100 1) but it will be $bpo_ver (100 == 100) in Squeeze. Full details of how the candidate is chosen is documented in the apt_preferences(5) manpage. That goes a long way toward clearing it up for me. Thanks. -- Bob Holtzman Key ID: 8D549279 If you think you're getting free lunch, check the price of the beer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: backports updates
On Du, 15 mai 11, 22:31:22, Lisi wrote: I am still getting backports updates in Lenny (via aptitude). At least, I was two (or was it three?) days ago. Is this very recent, this change? Please post the output of 'apt-cache policy'. Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: backports updates
On Monday 16 May 2011 20:04:09 Andrei Popescu wrote: On Du, 15 mai 11, 22:31:22, Lisi wrote: I am still getting backports updates in Lenny (via aptitude). At least, I was two (or was it three?) days ago. Is this very recent, this change? Please post the output of 'apt-cache policy'. Vanilla, and untouched by human hand. Exactly as aptitude/debian set it up! I have never dared touch my preferences file. It is only backported pacakges atht are update from backports, not everything. I am about to go away for three days, so will be unable to follow up until I get back. Herewith below. Lisi quote lisi@Tux:~$ apt-cache policy Package files: 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status release a=now 500 http://dl.google.com stable/main Packages release v=1.0,o=Google, Inc.,a=stable,l=Google,c=main origin dl.google.com 200 http://backports.debian.org lenny-backports/non-free Packages release o=Debian Backports,a=lenny-backports,l=Debian Backports,c=non-free origin backports.debian.org 200 http://backports.debian.org lenny-backports/contrib Packages release o=Debian Backports,a=lenny-backports,l=Debian Backports,c=contrib origin backports.debian.org 200 http://backports.debian.org lenny-backports/main Packages release o=Debian Backports,a=lenny-backports,l=Debian Backports,c=main origin backports.debian.org 500 http://deb.opera.com lenny/non-free Packages release o=Opera Software ASA,a=oldstable,l=The Opera web browser,c=non-free origin deb.opera.com 500 http://www.debian-multimedia.org lenny/non-free Translation-en_GB 500 http://www.debian-multimedia.org lenny/main Translation-en_GB 500 http://www.debian-multimedia.org lenny/main Packages release v=5.0,o=Unofficial Multimedia Packages,a=oldstable,l=Unofficial Multimedia Packages,c=main origin www.debian-multimedia.org 500 http://volatile.debian.org lenny/volatile/non-free Packages release o=volatile.debian.org,a=oldstable,l=debian-volatile,c=non-free origin volatile.debian.org 500 http://volatile.debian.org lenny/volatile/contrib Packages release o=volatile.debian.org,a=oldstable,l=debian-volatile,c=contrib origin volatile.debian.org 500 http://volatile.debian.org lenny/volatile/main Packages release o=volatile.debian.org,a=oldstable,l=debian-volatile,c=main origin volatile.debian.org 500 http://security.debian.org lenny/updates/non-free Packages release v=5.0,o=Debian,a=oldstable,l=Debian-Security,c=non-free origin security.debian.org 500 http://security.debian.org lenny/updates/contrib Packages release v=5.0,o=Debian,a=oldstable,l=Debian-Security,c=contrib origin security.debian.org 500 http://security.debian.org lenny/updates/main Packages release v=5.0,o=Debian,a=oldstable,l=Debian-Security,c=main origin security.debian.org 500 http://mirror.ox.ac.uk lenny/non-free Packages release v=5.0.8,o=Debian,a=oldstable,l=Debian,c=non-free origin mirror.ox.ac.uk 500 http://mirror.ox.ac.uk lenny/contrib Packages release v=5.0.8,o=Debian,a=oldstable,l=Debian,c=contrib origin mirror.ox.ac.uk 500 http://mirror.ox.ac.uk lenny/main Packages release v=5.0.8,o=Debian,a=oldstable,l=Debian,c=main origin mirror.ox.ac.uk Pinned packages: lisi@Tux:~$ /quote -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201105162043.37347.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: backports updates
On Lu, 16 mai 11, 20:43:37, Lisi wrote: Vanilla, and untouched by human hand. Exactly as aptitude/debian set it up! I have never dared touch my preferences file. [...] 200 http://backports.debian.org lenny-backports/non-free Packages release o=Debian Backports,a=lenny-backports,l=Debian Backports,c=non-free origin backports.debian.org 200 http://backports.debian.org lenny-backports/contrib Packages release o=Debian Backports,a=lenny-backports,l=Debian Backports,c=contrib origin backports.debian.org 200 http://backports.debian.org lenny-backports/main Packages release o=Debian Backports,a=lenny-backports,l=Debian Backports,c=main origin backports.debian.org backports.d.o has priority 200, while on a squeeze machine it gets only 100. You should inspect /etc/apt/preferences and the contents of /etc/apt/preferences.d/ (if any of these exist). Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
backports updates
According to the backports instructions site in order to get updates in Lenny it's necessary to add pinning. There's another statement that this isn't required for Squeeze. Does Squeeze backports get updated along with the other repos via apt-get update? -- Bob Holtzman Key ID: 8D549279 If you think you're getting free lunch, check the price of the beer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: backports updates
On Sunday 15 May 2011 22:05:29 Robert Holtzman wrote: According to the backports instructions site in order to get updates in Lenny it's necessary to add pinning. There's another statement that this isn't required for Squeeze. Does Squeeze backports get updated along with the other repos via apt-get update? I am still getting backports updates in Lenny (via aptitude). At least, I was two (or was it three?) days ago. Is this very recent, this change? Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201105152231.22269.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: backports updates
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 02:05:29PM -0700, Robert Holtzman wrote: According to the backports instructions site in order to get updates in Lenny it's necessary to add pinning. There's another statement that this isn't required for Squeeze. Does Squeeze backports get updated along with the other repos via apt-get update? My squeeze-backports priority drops to 100 without pinning, while squeeze is 990--apparently the /etc/apt/apt.conf Default-Release setting. I believe 990 is necessary to prioritize a package above an equal version of the target release or the installed version. -- Regards, Freeman Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. NO (or Linux) is the answer. --Somebody -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110515214730.GA3375@Deneb.office
Re: backports updates
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 02:47:30PM -0700, evenso wrote: On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 02:05:29PM -0700, Robert Holtzman wrote: According to the backports instructions site in order to get updates in Lenny it's necessary to add pinning. There's another statement that this isn't required for Squeeze. Does Squeeze backports get updated along with the other repos via apt-get update? My squeeze-backports priority drops to 100 without pinning, while squeeze is 990--apparently the /etc/apt/apt.conf Default-Release setting. I believe 990 is necessary to prioritize a package above an equal version of the target release or the installed version. P.S. I took out /etc/apt/apt.conf to double check. squeeze-backports remains at 100 but squeeze drops down to 500. -- Regards, Freeman Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. NO (or Linux) is the answer. --Somebody -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110515215100.GB3375@Deneb.office
Re: backports updates
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 10:31:22PM +0100, Lisi wrote: On Sunday 15 May 2011 22:05:29 Robert Holtzman wrote: According to the backports instructions site in order to get updates in Lenny it's necessary to add pinning. There's another statement that this isn't required for Squeeze. Does Squeeze backports get updated along with the other repos via apt-get update? I am still getting backports updates in Lenny (via aptitude). At least, I was two (or was it three?) days ago. Is this very recent, this change? Don't know. I just started playing with the backport repo. I'm attempting to become an Ubuntu refugee. -- Bob Holtzman Key ID: 8D549279 If you think you're getting free lunch, check the price of the beer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: backports updates
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 02:47:30PM -0700, Freeman wrote: On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 02:05:29PM -0700, Robert Holtzman wrote: According to the backports instructions site in order to get updates in Lenny it's necessary to add pinning. There's another statement that this isn't required for Squeeze. Does Squeeze backports get updated along with the other repos via apt-get update? My squeeze-backports priority drops to 100 without pinning, while squeeze is 990--apparently the /etc/apt/apt.conf Default-Release setting. I believe 990 is necessary to prioritize a package above an equal version of the target release or the installed version. What about the statement on the backport instruction site to the effect that the pinning step is not required for Squeeze? -- Bob Holtzman Key ID: 8D549279 If you think you're getting free lunch, check the price of the beer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: backports updates
On 2011-05-15 19:00:03 Robert Holtzman wrote: On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 02:47:30PM -0700, Freeman wrote: On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 02:05:29PM -0700, Robert Holtzman wrote: According to the backports instructions site in order to get updates in Lenny it's necessary to add pinning. There's another statement that this isn't required for Squeeze. Does Squeeze backports get updated along with the other repos via apt-get update? My squeeze-backports priority drops to 100 without pinning, while squeeze is 990--apparently the /etc/apt/apt.conf Default-Release setting. I believe 990 is necessary to prioritize a package above an equal version of the target release or the installed version. What about the statement on the backport instruction site to the effect that the pinning step is not required for Squeeze? In Lenny and before, without pinning or default-release, the master archive would be priority 500 and the backports archive would be priority 1. At priority 1 apt is willing to install the package, but will not upgrade to it. This meant that, if a package was installed from backports, then backports received a security update, the security update would not be installed through an apt upgrade. In Squeeze and after, without pinning or default-release, the master archive will still be priority 500 and the backports archive will be priority 1. At priority 100, apt is will to both install and upgrade the package. This means that, if a package is installed from backports, then backports receives a security update, the security update will be installed through an apt upgrade. You can use (apt-cache policy $package) to determine versions and pinning for a package. It will look something like this: aptitude: Installed: $inst_ver Candidate: $upgrade_ver Version table: $bpo_ver 0 $bpo_pri http://127.0.0.1/debian-backports/ stable-backports/main amd64 Packages *** $stbl_ver 0 $stbl_pri http://127.0.0.1/debian/ stable/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status $bpo_pri is 1 in Lenny (and pre-) and 100 in Squeeze (and post). $stbl_pri is 500 without default-release and 990 with. If you are using pinning to change these, read and understand the appropriate man page. If $inst_ver is (Not Installed) or = $stbl_ver then $upgrade_ver will be the highest one of the ones with the highest priority. That is, $stbl_ver in both Lenny and Squeeze. If $stbl_ver $inst_ver = $bpo_ver then $upgrade_ver will be $inst_ver in Lenny (100 1) but it will be $bpo_ver (100 == 100) in Squeeze. Full details of how the candidate is chosen is documented in the apt_preferences(5) manpage. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/\_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
