Hello Dominik, I agree with you that the situation with tomb in stable is not satisfactory.
Unfortunately the bug was detected to late to get the fix into buster as buster was already in deep freeze at that time. So, in the end, the release process led to the current situation. > I use stable because I expect the chance to things working with > default That's understandable but regrettably not fully achievable. I cite from the buster release notes [1]: » Contrary to our wishes, there may be some problems that exist in the release, even though it is declared stable. We've made a list of the major known problems, and you can always report other issues to us. « [1]: https://www.debian.org/releases/buster/index.en.html It is always a good idea to check backports in case a packet in stable does not work as expected. Best, Sven Am Montag, den 21.09.2020, 17:08 +0200 schrieb Dominik Schmidt-Philipp: > reached here with the same intention as Joerg Bornemann. > > apparently it is against Debian philosophy to include a version that > is > compatible with Debian 10 cryptsetup version. What document do I need > to > read to understand the reasoning behind that? > > I use stable because I expect the chance to things working with > default > settings to be highest there. tomb in Debian 10 is not usable without > reading discussions about bugreports. The workaround is both > difficult to > remember, and hard to find. Easiest workaround for me was just > installing > from source, not using APT. ok for me, but not possible to recommend > to > those I usually help out. > > thank you for inclusion in backports though. Hadn't thought of that, > since > usually I have no need to use newest version of system-tools. > > kind regards, > Dom
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
