[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#992051: security archive layout change needs more configuration changes



Hi Justin, all,

On 10-08-2021 14:29, Justin B Rye wrote:
> (I'm assuming APT::Default-Release users will be aware they're doing
> it, presumably because they've got sources defined for more than one
> release and need to specify which one is "primary")

I'm assuming the same.

> Do we need to mention fnmatch patterns (AKA globs) when the example
> doesn't use them?

I guess not. We don't need to write APT's documentation here.

Do you agree with the attached patch?

Paul
From ff677aa0be71b9a27d4d6d343f9ed1b14bcc086f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 13:03:30 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] issues.dbk: security archive requires update to pinning and
 Default-Release

Closes: #992051
---
 en/issues.dbk | 11 +++++++++++
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)

diff --git a/en/issues.dbk b/en/issues.dbk
index 1fbba7a3..d3321953 100644
--- a/en/issues.dbk
+++ b/en/issues.dbk
@@ -81,6 +81,17 @@
 	The security line in your APT configuration may look like:
 	<programlisting>deb https://deb.debian.org/debian-security bullseye-security main contrib</programlisting>
       </para>
+      <para>
+        If your APT configuration also involves pinning or
+        <literal>APT::Default-Release</literal>, it is likely to
+        require adjustments as the codename of the security archive no
+        longer matches that of the regular archive. An example of a
+        working <literal>APT::Default-Release</literal> line for
+        bullseye looks like:
+        <programlisting>APT::Default-Release "/^bullseye(|-security|-upgrades)$/";</programlisting>
+        which takes advantage of the undocumented feature of APT that
+        it supports regular expressions (inside <literal>/</literal>).
+      </para>
     </section>
 
     <section id="pam-default-password">
-- 
2.30.2

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: