On Fri, 2023-07-21 at 11:04 +0200, Daniel Gröber wrote: > Do you have any references on how this decision came to be? I think it was about making the suite naming more intuitive, consistent with other suites and possibly also some dak implementation concerns. > One mention I found is in Raphaël and Roland's DAH (now in CC): > https://debian-handbook.info/browse/stable/sect.apt-get.html#sect.apt-upgrade Probably better to file a bug about this, so it is tracked. > The places I'm most concerned about, people's brains and random web sites, > aren't so easily fixed unfortunately. Advice to set this is splattered all > over the web, I really don't understand why we made a change so seemingly > ill advised as this? > > A web search for "Debian Default-Release security" didn't reveal anything > talking about this problem, especially not our release notes, so I think > this change didn't get the publicity it deserves at the very least. > > What I don't understand is why the security repo codename wasn't changed to > $codename/security? Wouldn't that be handled correctly by APT? Unless the > /update string in particular had special handling? You will have to ask the apt developers and archive admins about this, but at the end of the day reverting it is unlikely to happen, so probably it is something everyone will just have to learn to live with. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part