Re: use stable/unstable source at the same time

["L.V.Gandhi" <lvgandhi@gmail.com>]

On 2/3/06, Magnus Therning <magnus@therning.org> wrote:

> AFAIK setting APT::Default-Release is an easier way than pinning.
> Personally I avoid pinning as far as possible...
>
> >The exact configuration then depends on which of the three repositories
> >you want to prioritise - i.e. do you want to track stable but having
> >testing/unstable packages available, or do you want to track testing or
> >unstable.
>
> The APT::Default-Release does that too. E.g. I have testing, unstable
> and experimental in my APT source.list. With "APT::Default-Release
> "unstable";" I get the following
>
>  % apt-cache policy alsa-utils
>  alsa-utils:
>    Installed: (none)
>    Candidate: 1.0.10-1
>    Version table:
>       1.0.10+1.0.11rc2-1 0
>            1 http://ftp.uk.debian.org experimental/main Packages
>       1.0.10-1 0
>          500 http://ftp.uk.debian.org testing/main Packages
>          990 http://ftp.uk.debian.org unstable/main Packages
>
> So "apt-get install alsa-utils" will install the package from unstable,
> while experimental and testing is available. I need pinning to keep a
> package in testing from being upgraded to unstable though.

What are the pros and cons of using mixed packages?

--
L.V.Gandhi
http://lvgandhi.tripod.com/
linux user No.205042