1 |
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 1:53 PM antlists <antlists@××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On 31/01/2021 19:20, Rich Freeman wrote: |
4 |
> > On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 11:01 PM Kusoneko <kusoneko@××××××××.moe> wrote: |
5 |
> >> |
6 |
> >> It states that starting the next xorg-server version, ... |
7 |
> >> |
8 |
> >> ... Doing the required update is currently impossible. |
9 |
> >> |
10 |
> >> I am definitely not gonna remember about this |
11 |
> >> in a week or 2 so I'd like to deal with whatever |
12 |
> >> this issue is asap. Is there any way to do this? |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > You hit on the issue. You can either wait and not have to mess with |
15 |
> > much, or you can force things using keywords as Jacques suggested, and |
16 |
> > then if you want to go back to stable do more work later to transition |
17 |
> > back. |
18 |
> > |
19 |
> Is there a way to say "install this version from ~ if it's more recent |
20 |
> than stable"? That way, as stable catches up and overtakes ~, it reverts |
21 |
> back to stable without any further intervention? |
22 |
|
23 |
When I'm in this sort of situation I tend to stick range atoms in |
24 |
package.accept_keywords. |
25 |
|
26 |
For example, if foo-1.2.3 is stable, and foo-1.3.1 is unstable and I |
27 |
need it for a while, I'll stick this in package.accept_keywords: |
28 |
<foo-1.4 |
29 |
|
30 |
That lets me get updates to the foo-1.3.x branch from unstable but |
31 |
will keep me from advancing to 1.4 until it is stable. |
32 |
|
33 |
Of course you need to look at the package versioning scheme and be |
34 |
somewhat familiar with how it is being maintained to do this. You |
35 |
don't want to lock yourself into something obsolete and miss critical |
36 |
fixes. I only do this selectively in any case so there is usually a |
37 |
good reason when I do. You can't just do this sort of thing blindly. |
38 |
|
39 |
-- |
40 |
Rich |