Your message dated Mon, 23 Dec 2024 15:25:55 +0000 with message-id <CAJ3BuoQ_i01KuQEDiwO-jGZ=3YbeUdpnsDnf8o2fUTRT=e70_Q@mail.gmail.com> and subject line Re: Bug#1012174: Inconsistent advice wrt security archive has caused the Debian Bug report #1012174, regarding Inconsistent advice wrt security archive to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1012174: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1012174 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: Inconsistent advice wrt security archive
- From: David Prévot <taffit@debian.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 14:26:39 +0200
- Message-id: <YpYJfwk2EkgriXCX@persil.tilapin.org>
Package: www.debian.org,release-notes Severity: normal X-Debbugs-Cc: team@security.debian.org Hi teams, The [errata] advises one to use deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security bullseye-security main contrib non-free while the [release-notes] advises deb https://deb.debian.org/debian-security bullseye-security main contrib Even if both will have the same result (the last time a non-free package was uploaded to the security archive may have been during Etch), having two different official advice makes it difficult in some situation (“what should we actually use?”). Is the use of HTTPS via deb.d.o preferable over HTTP via security.d.o? If so maybe the errata should be updated, if it’s the other way around, the realease-notes should be updated. errata: https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/errata#security release-notes: https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-information#security-archive Regards DavidAttachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: 1012174-done@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#1012174: Inconsistent advice wrt security archive
- From: Richard Lewis <richard.lewis.debian@googlemail.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2024 15:25:55 +0000
- Message-id: <CAJ3BuoQ_i01KuQEDiwO-jGZ=3YbeUdpnsDnf8o2fUTRT=e70_Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 8 May 2023 09:42:02 +0100 Richard Lewis <richard.lewis.debian@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 3 May 2023 21:52:47 +0200 Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> wrote: > > Hi Richard, > > > > On 01-05-2023 16:26, Richard Lewis wrote: > > > I dont think the 'errata' page above is in the release-notes repository (?) > > > > That's correct, but that's also why the original reporter filed the bug > > against both www.debian.org and release-notes. > > thanks - didn't know that was even a possibility! > > > It lives here: > > https://salsa.debian.org/webmaster-team/webwml/-/blob/master/english/releases/bookworm/errata.wml > > MR for that file submitted @ > https://salsa.debian.org/webmaster-team/webwml/-/merge_requests/903 This MR was merged, (and release-notes was already updated) so this bug can be closed
--- End Message ---