in 24.10 or 25.04. It stands to reason we could add Disabled
sources too, and if you specify apt install foo/oracular-proposed
it just goes tweaks the bit, runs the update on it, and then
installs the package from it.
Also useful will be --no-strict-pinning such that you can use
apt install foo/oracular-proposed --no-strict-pinning to install
foo and satisfy as many dependencies from the release pocket as
possible*. You can use that with apt in oracular now. The next
version 2.9.5 should have some more improvements.
* This is formally an approximation. The APT solver 3.0 applies a
deterministic SAT solving algorithm with backtracking, which will
first try the candidate, then the installed version, and then ordered
by priority (including negative ones, fwiw) but it does not use MaxSAT
techniques to fully optimize the result. This means that given weird
dependencies, it could pull in more than strictly needed.
On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 03:11:18PM +0200, Marco Trevisan wrote:
> In the past [1] I was suggesting something similar, and IMHO it would be
> quite useful for having better SRU testing tooling too.
>
> It's true that using `apt -t *-proposed` would work well for testing,
> but I was wondering if that should also come with an
> `ubuntu-sru-verifier` (or better name) tool that would handle for the
> testers installation and potential revert of SRU testing packages.
>
> Cheers
>
> [1] https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/should-we-enable-proposed-by-default-with-lower-pin-priority/28580
>
> On mag 2 2024, at 3:30 pm, Robie Basak <robie.basak@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 02:15:59AM -0800, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> >> I'd like to suggest that we start setting NotAutomatic: yes for the
> >> proposed pocket with hirsute+1, such that things like SRU verification
> >> will be easier, and all those people who enable proposed in sources.list
> >> for I don't know what reasons don't get their systems destroyed as much.
> >
> > Now that we have an LTS out with NotAutomatic: yes, I wonder if it would
> > be worth looking to add the proposed pocket in apt sources by default
> > everywhere in future releases, like we do for backports[1].
> >
> > Upside: it would make for even simpler instructions for users to test
> > something from proposed.
> >
> > Downside: users would have yet more downloading on "apt update",
> > although perhaps we should expect the proposed lists to be small?
> >
> > To be clear, I'm on the fence, and polling for opinions.
> >
> > Robie
> >
> > [1] There are so many ways of deploying Ubuntu now that perhaps it's
> > worth reviewing them for consistent behaviour.
> > --
> > ubuntu-devel mailing list
> > ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
> > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
> >
>
> --
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
--
debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev
ubuntu core developer i speak de, en
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
