Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> writes: > On Tue, 2022-08-23 at 10:03 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> writes: >> > On Mon, 2022-08-22 at 07:10 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> > >> > As far as I know powerpc isn't supported for Debian stable nor the >> > Debian security updates archive. >> >> Interesting -- where can I read about that? The release notes says that >> ppc64el is an officially supported architecture for Debian 11: > > Your initial mail mentioned powerpc, which is the older 32-bit port, > while you are using the newer ppc64el port, which is supported. Right. >> Isn't the problem that somehow the package from >> bullseye-proposed-updates-debug was prefered over the one from >> bullseye-debug? For security updates you want that, for updates to >> stable you don't want that. Maybe there should be a >> bullseye-updates-debug distribution? > > That is the correct analysis yeah. The wiki page you linked has a bug > about adding a dbgsym archive for the debian-security archive, but > there hasn't been any work done on it at all yet, so I doubt the issue > will be fixed any time soon. For now I suggest either dropping the > b-p-u-d from your apt sources or pinning them to low priority and only > ever installing them manually. You could also add the non-debug suite > bullseye-proposed-updates to your apt sources, but then you would get > additional low-priority updates ahead of the point releases. > > https://bugs.debian.org/894081 > https://wiki.debian.org/AptConfiguration#apt_preferences_.28APT_pinning.29 Good pointers, thank you! Yes, it seems I re-discovered that bug report, sorry for the noise. /Simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature