On 2019-07-09 20:53, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
we currently have code dealing with falling back from InRelease
to Release{,.gpg} and it's all a bit much IMO. Now that buster
has been released with an InRelease file, the time has IMO come for
us to drop support for the old stuff from APT!
Timeli
On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 08:53:04PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> So,
>
> we currently have code dealing with falling back from InRelease
> to Release{,.gpg} and it's all a bit much IMO. Now that buster
> has been released with an InRelease file, the time has IMO come for
> us to drop support
On Wed, 2019-07-10 at 10:17 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> 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 Kl
Quoting Julian Andres Klode (2019-07-10 10:17:51)
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:10:41AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > 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?
I
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 4:18 PM Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> What's the use case for having oldstable in your sources.list on
> unstable/testing machines?
I have it in a chdist so that I can look up package versions in old releases.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
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
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
> > > >
Release 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.
Also like we've be
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 th
On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 08:53:04PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
>So,
>
>we currently have code dealing with falling back from InRelease
>to Release{,.gpg} and it's all a bit much IMO. Now that buster
>has been released with an InRelease file, the time has IMO come for
>us to drop support for t
So,
we currently have code dealing with falling back from InRelease
to Release{,.gpg} and it's all a bit much IMO. Now that buster
has been released with an InRelease file, the time has IMO come for
us to drop support for the old stuff from APT!
Timeline suggestion
---
now
Jens Seidel wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 05:53:22PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>> Is it still the case that one needs to manually add an (gpg checking)
>> exception for DVD images for upgrades from etch to lenny? If so, can
>> someone please provide a text (license: GPL v2) for inclusion in the
>>
On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 05:53:22PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Is it still the case that one needs to manually add an (gpg checking)
> exception for DVD images for upgrades from etch to lenny? If so, can
> someone please provide a text (license: GPL v2) for inclusion in the
> release notes?
Yes, I t
Hi
Is it still the case that one needs to manually add an (gpg checking)
exception for DVD images for upgrades from etch to lenny? If so, can
someone please provide a text (license: GPL v2) for inclusion in the
release notes?
Thanks already.
Luk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
> I'm having trouble verifying release.gpg for Unstable. Has the release key
> been changed to 30B34DD5
Ah, so it has. I just found the announcement which had been filtered to a
wrong mail folder by accident. Sorry.
- Jarno
Hi,
I'm having trouble verifying release.gpg for Unstable. Has the release key
been changed to 30B34DD5, am I doing something wrong or what's up?
After apt-secure failed to "apt-get update" today...
Err http://ftp.fi.debian.org unstable Release
The following si
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 03:30:45PM +0100, Jan Niehusmann wrote:
> Is there a reason why the Release.gpg files for testing and unstable are
> empty?
Yes, 'twas a bug on ftp-master. I created and added the 2002 key the
other day, and tested it, but neglected to ensure the permissions w
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 05:51:39PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Jan Niehusmann wrote:
> > Is there a reason why the Release.gpg files for testing and unstable are
> > empty?
>
> A bug on your end of the pipe?
>
> auric!joey(pts/0):/org/ftp.debian.org/inco
Jan Niehusmann wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Is there a reason why the Release.gpg files for testing and unstable are
> empty?
A bug on your end of the pipe?
auric!joey(pts/0):/org/ftp.debian.org/incoming> l `locate Release.gpg`
-rw-r--r--1 ajt Debian240 Dec 17 21:11
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 03:30:45PM +0100, Jan Niehusmann wrote:
> I'm using the Wichert's script to check the integrity of the local
Sorry, wrong attribution - of course, the script is written by Anthony
Towns.
Previously Jan Niehusmann wrote:
> I'm using the Wichert's script to check the integrity of the local
> mirror, but at the moment this is not possible because auf the missing
> signature.
I never wrote such a script as far as I know :)
Wichert.
--
_
Hi!
Is there a reason why the Release.gpg files for testing and unstable are
empty?
I'm using the Wichert's script to check the integrity of the local
mirror, but at the moment this is not possible because auf the missing
signature.
Jan
22 matches
Mail list logo
