[Aptitude-devel] Bug#693684: aptitude: "-t unstable show <package>" doesn't show expected version of package
jvpeetz at web.de
Tue Nov 20 09:42:49 UTC 2012
thank you for the explanations.
And thank you for your work on aptitude. I appreciate it.
I use aptitude regularly from the command-line.
Daniel Hartwig wrote, on 11/20/12 02:34:
> Control: retitle -1 aptitude: man page mentions old “-t” exceptions
> Control: tags -1 + confirmed
> On 19 November 2012 17:22, Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz at web.de> wrote:
>> the command
>> aptitude -t unstable show <package>
>> actually shows information of the version of <package> in the default (here:
>> testing) release, while the command
>> aptitude show <package>/unstable
>> works as described in the documentation of aptitude and shows the
>> description of <package> in the unstable release.
> The section describing “-t” in aptitude(8) describes an exception to
> the normal handling of this argument  for three commands. That
> exception is inconsistent with other aptitude commands, and apt,
> including the equivalent commands in apt-get and apt-cache. This made
> use of “-t” problematic and lead to unexpected results across
> combinations of commands. For example:
> $ cat /etc/apt/preferences
> Package: xsltproc
> Pin: release a=unstable
> Pin-Priority: 991
> $ aptitude changelog -t experimental xsltproc
> [details from experimental version, due to “-t” exception for
> “aptitude changelog”]
> $ apt-get changelog -t experimental xsltproc
> [details from unstable, apt-get has no “-t” exceptions]
> $ su
> # aptitude install -t experimental xsltproc
> [installs unstable version, due to apt_preferences(5) and lack of “-t”
> exception for “install”]
> The “-t” exceptions have been removed to avoid this. That section of
> the man page will be updated.
>> In previous versions of aptitude both commands resulted in the same
> True. The intention of current versions is that “-t unstable
> <package>” is not necessarily equivalent to “<package>/unstable” in
> any commands, and only has effect via the usual apt_preferences(5)
> mechanism. All of
> aptitude and apt-get are now consistent in that regard, and the
> problematic section of the man page will be updated.
> Thanks for the report, I had missed that man page section when making
> this change.
More information about the Aptitude-devel