Re: Cloud images with backports APT-enabled.
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:52:04PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> Hi Charles,
>
> On Mon Dec 28, 2015 at 23:19:30 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > In conclusion:
> >
> > We are not going to enable backports by default in the short term, but
> > I hope that some readers, like me, strenghtened their understanding on
> > how APT works.
>
> First of all, thank you very much for this excellent summary.
>
> How about the following idea: In case we are not able to find a
> technical solution for this for the Debian Stretch release, we encourage
> cloud providers to offer two images, one with backports enabled and one
> without backports? For the backports-enabled images we then could ask
> them to add a disclaimer explaining the technical problem.
I have two possible solutions:
(1) Changing the pinning defaults so NEW packages from NotAutomatic
repositories are pinned to -1 by default instead of 1/100.
(2) Changing the output.
David likes (2), but it really makes no sense overall, as it does
not affect other frontends at all. (1) is implemented right now in
http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/apt/apt.git/commit/?h=feature/noinstall-notautomic&id=cf4761eea9e9f6f17e90d1d1e9c369087de5efd0
This will make some frontends like aptitude potentially do wrong stuff
but it's the only way to make sure dumb frontends could not automatically
install a package.
On the other hand, some frontends could not install any package from
backports at all (/me looks at gnome-software).
So I'm not sure I want a technical solution. (1) breaks stuff and
use cases and (2) gives us some assurance, but only for APT and not
for dumb frontends.
--
Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member
See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/.
When replying, only quote what is necessary, and write each reply
directly below the part(s) it pertains to (`inline'). Thank you.
Reply to: