On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:10:41AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2019-07-10 10:04, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:35:25AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 2:53 AM Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > >
> > > > Timeline suggestion
> > > > -------------------
> > > > now add a warning to apt 1.9.x for repositories w/o InRelease,
> > > > but Release{,.gpg}
> > > > Aug/Sep turn the warning into an error, overridable with an option
> > > > (?)
> > > > Q1 2020 remove the code
> [...]
> > We do need them to ship InRelease files. I just filed an issue for OBS
> > to do that. Given how long we had InRelease file, and how confusing it
> > is to not provide InRelease files (not to mention that it doubles the
> > traffic for no-change cases), I'm surprised they aren't using InRelease
> > files yet.
>
> Given the timeline, shouldn't we also get oldstable to ship an InRelease
> file?
What's the use case for having oldstable in your sources.list on
unstable/testing machines?
But yes, I think it would make sense to ship an InRelease file
with 9.10 now that we are capable of having those.
--
debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev
ubuntu core developer i speak de, en
