Hi, On Fri, 31 Dec 2021, Paul Gevers wrote: > > Otherwise I would like to suggest to create two entries, one with > > "Pin: release a=foo" and one with "Pin: release n=foo" so that > > we are sure to match on any of the 3 fields. > > I'll have to check and think about this. I remember that I had lots of > issues with coming up with changes to autopkgtest that also worked for > Ubuntu, as they use the same Codename for the real Suite and the *-proposed > Suite (which they call pocket). I don't recall if that was with respect to > pinning or other aspects of autopkgtest and it's requirement to manipulate > where packages should be installed from. Before committing your proposal I > need to understand that I'm not breaking existing valid configurations too.
I saw a comment mentionning this, but it was related to the "--apt-pocket" option and I didn't change that part, which still uses the "a=foo" syntax. https://salsa.debian.org/ci-team/autopkgtest/-/blob/master/lib/adt_testbed.py#L1263 And indeed in http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/jammy-proposed/Release you have Suite: jammy-proposed Codename: jammy Cheers, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Raphaël Hertzog <hert...@debian.org> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/ ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
