{{Header}}
{{#seo:
|description=Why we should avoid Debian APT Pinning
}}
{{intro|
Why we should avoid Debian APT Pinning
}}

= Summary =
Debian developers would literally hate this.

Okay for end users and sys admins, but not a solution for a Debian derivative.

= More Details =
Question:
[https://lists.debian.org/debian-derivatives/2013/08/msg00004.html Can a package pull a another package from another repository to be added?]

Answers:

* https://lists.debian.org/debian-derivatives/2013/08/msg00005.html
* https://lists.debian.org/debian-derivatives/2013/08/msg00006.html

Example where {{project_name_long}} backports APT pinning instructions broke users systems:

https://forums.whonix.org/t/templates-incorrectly-think-theyre-not-connected-to-a-whonix-gateway/2258/25

= Misc =
user documentation template: [[Template:Apt-Pinning]] archived: https://www.kicksecure.com/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Template%3AApt-Pinning&timestamp=20170721231624

= Major Issues =
https://forums.whonix.org/t/templates-incorrectly-think-theyre-not-connected-to-a-whonix-gateway/2258/25

= backports by default =
* Had resulted to breakage in Qubes. See: https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-issues/issues/4443
* Debian bug [https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=951315 linux-image-amd64 vs linux-headers-amd64 Debian buster-backports version mismatch bpo.2 vs bpo.3] shows that just enabling backports repository might lead to issues. In this example, breaking all kernel modules due to kernel image vs kernel headers version mismatch from backports packages.debian.org.

= History =
This idea came up originally in context of: https://web.archive.org/web/20220322174537/https://github.com/Whonix/Whonix/issues/60

{{Footer}}
[[Category:Development]]