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

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



Package: release-notes

Hi,

I just sent this message to the security team, the release notes need
adapting.

Paul

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: security archive layout change warrants announcement
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 07:44:07 +0200
From: Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org>
To: Debian Security Team <team@security.debian.org>

Hi security team,

I don't know if you already planned on an announcement after the
bullseye release about the security archive layout change, but below I
urge you to think about it.

Yesterday I noticed that the layout change of the security impacts more
than just the apt *sources* as my system wasn't updating perl,
libencode-perl and exiv2. I already enabled the new security archive
layout a long time ago (and apt will complain when the sources are not
found). I discussed the issue on IRC on #d-release with juliank (apt
upstream). What users *need* to be aware of is that apt pinning (pabs
told me) and APT::Default-Release (found myself) may need adjustments
too, otherwise security updates are not installed.

I'm working on text for the release notes, but I fear a lot of users
will not be reading those and when they upgrade their secure buster
systems and only fix their apt sources, depending on how they configure
their system to follow bullseye, they may easily miss out on security
updates.

I therefore recommend you to send out an security announcement too after
the bullseye release (or whatever you feel is most appropriate)
explaining the layout change and the configuration impact.

Paul
PS: yesterday I learned that APT::Default-Release also supports "POSIX
fnmatch patterns or regular expressions inside /" On suggestion by
juliank I now have this APT::Default-Release myself (which worked for me):
APT::Default-Release "/^bullseye(|-security|-upgrades)$/";



Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: