On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013, Wookey wrote:
>> +++ martin f krafft [2013-01-25 16:06 +1300]:
>> > also sprach David Kalnischkies [2013.01.25.0020
>> > +1300]:
>> > > You can find much of the same discussion in the bugreport requesting
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 11:19:00 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Now, complete documentation of the Release files, where the tags you can use
> in repositories to get such nice functionality like ButAutomaticUpdates...
> Does anyone know where such a thing might dwell?
I don't think ther
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013, Wookey wrote:
> +++ martin f krafft [2013-01-25 16:06 +1300]:
> > also sprach David Kalnischkies [2013.01.25.0020
> > +1300]:
> > > You can find much of the same discussion in the bugreport requesting
> > > implementation of this feature in APT: #596097
> >
> > Thanks for th
+++ martin f krafft [2013-01-25 16:06 +1300]:
> also sprach David Kalnischkies [2013.01.25.0020
> +1300]:
> > You can find much of the same discussion in the bugreport requesting
> > implementation of this feature in APT: #596097
>
> Thanks for the pointer! I missed this discussion un^Wfortunate
martin f krafft schrieb am Friday, den 25. January 2013:
> also sprach Alexander Wirt [2013.01.25.2001 +1300]:
> > > Setting ButAutomaticUpdates certainly doesn't have enough pros to
> > > warrant this change, just like that. The way it was before does have
> > > a huge pro though: it's the way i
also sprach Alexander Wirt [2013.01.25.2001 +1300]:
> > Setting ButAutomaticUpdates certainly doesn't have enough pros to
> > warrant this change, just like that. The way it was before does have
> > a huge pro though: it's the way it's been for years. You know, never
> > change a winning team…
> t
martin f krafft schrieb am Thursday, den 24. January 2013:
> also sprach Joerg Jaspert [2013.01.24.2017 +1300]:
> > > And say that a year later 2.3 comes out and it's the bee's knees
> > > because it fully replaces 1.1 except that the configuration cannot
> > > be automatically migrated, and all
martin f krafft schrieb am Thursday, den 24. January 2013:
> Hey folks,
>
> For a while now, the backports archive sets "ButAutomaticUpdates:
> yes" in its Release file, causing packages in the archive to be
> pinned with priority 100, rather than 1 (which was previously the
> case).
>
> The eff
also sprach David Kalnischkies [2013.01.25.0020 +1300]:
> You can find much of the same discussion in the bugreport requesting
> implementation of this feature in APT: #596097
Thanks for the pointer! I missed this discussion un^Wfortunately.
Anyway, it seems that most people are in favour of this
On 24/01/13 07:48, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Joerg Jaspert [2013.01.24.2017
> +1300]:
>>> And say that a year later 2.3 comes out and it's the bee's
>>> knees because it fully replaces 1.1 except that the
>>> configuration cannot be automatically migrated, and all the
>>> power users on
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:39 AM, martin f krafft wrote:
> I think we ought to revert this change and turn off
> ButAutomaticUpgrades for the backports archive (and update
> apt_preferences(5)).
You can find much of the same discussion in the bugreport requesting
implementation of this feature in
also sprach Joerg Jaspert [2013.01.24.2017 +1300]:
> > And say that a year later 2.3 comes out and it's the bee's knees
> > because it fully replaces 1.1 except that the configuration cannot
> > be automatically migrated, and all the power users on #debian-devel
> > persuade you to backport it, wh
martin f krafft writes:
> also sprach Russ Allbery [2013.01.24.1856 +1300]:
>> I always understood that I had a responsibility as a backporter to
>> release security fixes as necessary, and if I wasn't going to do that,
>> I shouldn't upload the backport in the first place. I handle backport
>>
On 13101 March 1977, martin f. krafft wrote:
>> I always understood that I had a responsibility as a backporter to release
>> security fixes as necessary, and if I wasn't going to do that, I shouldn't
>> upload the backport in the first place. I handle backport security fixes
>> exactly the way t
also sprach Russ Allbery [2013.01.24.1856 +1300]:
> I always understood that I had a responsibility as a backporter to release
> security fixes as necessary, and if I wasn't going to do that, I shouldn't
> upload the backport in the first place. I handle backport security fixes
> exactly the way
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:39 AM, martin f krafft wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> For a while now, the backports archive sets "ButAutomaticUpdates:
> yes" in its Release file, causing packages in the archive to be
> pinned with priority 100, rather than 1 (which was previously the
> case).
>
> The effect o
martin f krafft writes:
> While this might seem like a good idea at first — like when
> a security fix reaches the backports archive
Indeed.
> I am sure we all agree that the
> deny-all-but-what-is-explicitly-allowed policy is the better one. So
> why did we make the switch?
Because of securit
17 matches
Mail list logo
