#x27;Suggests'
through, but they behave like that already if installed by d-i, so that
is probably for the best for consistency alone.
In any case, I will leave d-i folks have fun with this now,
but feel free to ask apt-team if there is something we can help with.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
s a hack,
not a role model. It is barely acceptable only because it effects only
a tiny fraction of our user base so far. And even for those, I would
like apt to help not installing broken packages (but that is another
topic).
So, who is gonna take the blame for deciding this for everyone?
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
[0]
https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt/-/blob/main/apt-private/private-update.cc#L88-106
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
n use basename somehow to figure out the name, but I feel that this
> would be a little surprising.
We haven't figured out a sensible scheme for file naming either which
was one more reason to not try to make 'apt-key add' work without gpg.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
esn't make use of this yet through
and I don't know how other tools might react if it would).
So we can't really go with a logic of "if any file from this component
can be downloaded" as that set might very well be empty. We also can't
look if the Release file contains any file for this component as we
don't really know what is the component in the filepath:
"main/debian-installer/some/file" might be from the component "main",
"main/debian-installer" or "main/debian-installer/some".
As said, I am not sure. In the end reassigning to ftpmaster might be the
best option, but I am open for other opinions.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
feature, too].
> > Remember we're talking about adding extra repositories with custom d-i
> > configuration, so I'm fine with people having broken stuff because they
> > pasted a whole mail…
>
> agreed, we can expect these folks to get the details right.
For the same reason I wouldn't worry too much about people using *.asc
files with binary format contents and vice versa to be honest.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
all the good parts of the discussion as I am not subscribed to -boot or
-backports. I am just responding to calls to deity(@). ;)
The best "fruits" for me in this thread were actually the private
replies I got, which I haven't answered as I don't really know what to
say, but still are very grateful for as even after all things said in
public I actually ended up labeling this experience as good, which
I hadn't even considered a potential outcome initially.
So, thanks a lot!
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
(see the other mail for more on this topic and also hopefully as
a clearup of what was meant initially; just picking some semi-unique
element here)
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 03:39:25PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> David Kalnischkies writes:
> > Personally, I am in the "enable backpo
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 05:00:47PM +0100, Rhonda D'Vine wrote:
> * David Kalnischkies [2015-11-30 22:22:08 CET]:
> > In other words: If you have experimental sources on your stable system,
> > packages new in experimental will be automatically installed, too, if
> > r
service than stable, but
if apt would hide this choice behind an error I would just get the
impression that the system is making this needlessly difficult – after
all, far more dangerous solutions like removing the entire desktop
environment is purposed without additional loop to jump through, too]
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
> In which case, going back to apt.git and "sudo debi -u" to reinstall all
> packages I've built seems to fix the issue.
As mentioned briefly schroot copies users & groups from your host
system, so if your host system has no _apt user, the _apt user in your
schroot will "disappear" next time it is copied over.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
privilege dropping for the moment.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
diff --git a/apt-pkg/contrib/fileutl.cc b/apt-pkg/contrib/fileutl.cc
index 46de634..f754b31 100644
--- a/apt-pkg/contrib/fileutl.cc
+++ b/apt-pkg/contrib/fileutl.cc
@@ -2322,12 +2322,17 @@ bool DropPrivileges() /*{{{*/
t; which has a slightly different meaning for
me if its attached to code. ;)
(As usual, if you are said volunteer feel free to contact me (or better
yet deity@) and we will do what we can to help you out; I just want to
make cristal clear that we don't have the resources to do it ourselves
I have extended a bit
to cover a bit more ground, too. Nothing near proper testing though, so
someone giving it a proper testspin would be nice, but if that is too
hard I guess Michael could just upload it and let the world test it for
us (now that he doesn't have to fear another security upload).
2010/8/26 Carsten Hey :
> * David Kalnischkies [2010-08-26 17:43 +0200]:
>> Long story short:
>> If you want to get updates from an archive only if you pushed a version
>> previously from it: 100 => pin > 500.
>
> Wouldn't adding a new field to Release files s
will wait with an upgrade until this one or newer is in proper testing…
So, to let that actually work a user should not have a default-release…
Long story short:
If you want to get updates from an archive only if you pushed a version
previously from it: 100 => pin > 500.
Best regards
D
15 matches
Mail list logo
