Hi Paul, On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 03:56:02PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > One mention I found is in Raphaël and Roland's DAH (now in CC): > > https://debian-handbook.info/browse/stable/sect.apt-get.html#sect.apt-upgrade > > Probably better to file a bug about this, so it is tracked.
Ah, I didn't realise debian-handbook has a package in the archive :) Done, Bug#1041706: debian-handbook: Wrong advice on APT::Default-Release preventing security updates. > > What I don't understand is why the security repo codename wasn't changed to > > $codename/security? Wouldn't that be handled correctly by APT? Unless the > > /update string in particular had special handling? > > You will have to ask the apt developers and archive admins about this, > but at the end of the day reverting it is unlikely to happen, so > probably it is something everyone will just have to learn to live with. I've had a quick look at the apt code now and indeed it seems to handle $codename/$whatever as equivalent to $codename, see metaIndex::CheckDist. I don't see why we couldn't revert this change. Anybody who's applied the hack from the bullseye release-notes will be unaffected as the regex will still match a plain code/suite-name but people who never applied this advice will get their security updates back. I've sent a bug to apt as well, just about the doc references for now: Bug#1041708: apt: Manpages have wrong advice on APT::Default-Release preventing security updates. Who do I contact about the archive aspects? FTP-master or the security-team? The security-team is in CC on the doc bugs so I'm hoping they will see it anyway. Thanks, --Daniel
