On Wed, 2019-07-10 at 10:17 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:10:41AM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > > On 2019-07-10 10:04, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:35:25AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 2:53 AM Julian Andres Klode wrote: > > > > > > > > > Timeline suggestion > > > > > ------------------- > > > > > now add a warning to apt 1.9.x for repositories w/o InRelease, but Release{,.gpg} > > > > > Aug/Sep turn the warning into an error, overridable with an option (?) > > > > > Q1 2020 remove the code > > [...] > > > We do need them to ship InRelease files. I just filed an issue for OBS > > > to do that. Given how long we had InRelease file, and how confusing it > > > is to not provide InRelease files (not to mention that it doubles the > > > traffic for no-change cases), I'm surprised they aren't using InRelease > > > files yet. > > > > Given the timeline, shouldn't we also get oldstable to ship an InRelease > > file? > > What's the use case for having oldstable in your sources.list on > unstable/testing machines? I currently have "deb-src ... jessie main" in my sources.list so I can fetch packages that (might) need a security update. Obviously I build them in a jessie chroot, but it seems like overkill to do that for the initial source download too. And back when I was doing triage for Debian LTS I wouldn't build at all - I would only look at the source to see if a bug was present in the old version. Ben. > But yes, I think it would make sense to ship an InRelease file > with 9.10 now that we are capable of having those. > -- Ben Hutchings One of the nice things about standards is that there are so many of them.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part