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

Bug#879786: apt: Please explain in apt-secure(8) how to switch stable to oldstable



Control: notfound -1 2.2.4
Control: merge 879786 -1

On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 10:30:00AM +0100, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> Package: apt
> Version: 2.2.4
> Severity: wishlist
> 
> I just had to update a machine running (now) oldstable. It was last
> updated before the release of bullseye, so it is not oldstabel.
> 
> Running apt-get update, I get lots of:
> E: Repository 'http://security.debian.org buster/updates InRelease' changed its 'Suite' value from 'stable' to 'oldstable'
> N: This must be accepted explicitly before updates for this repository can be applied. See apt-secure(8) manpage for details.
> …

This was fixed in 1.8.2.3 and 2.1.10, see Bug#931566

> 
> This is expected, and I read apt-secure(8) how to deal with this.
> However,  the man page simply says:
> Since version 1.5 the user
>        must therefore explicitly confirm changes to signal that the
>        user is sufficiently prepared e.g. for the new major release of
>        the distribution shipped in the repository (as e.g. indicated
>        by the codename).
> 
> However, there is no link how to do this, what steps are necessary.
> 
> After a quick online search, I found that:
> apt-get update --allow-releaseinfo-change
> 
> does the trick. 
> 
> Since this is a common use case, please describe it, e.g. in an
> EXAMPLE section. Possibly examples from other frontends (like apt,
> aptitutude, dselect, …) could be added as well.
> 
> This would greatly reduce the workload for a part time administrator
> (and would avoid trusing "random" web sources).
> 
> Before sending I found this bug (#879786) and I think it would be a
> really good idea handling this, the EXAMPLE section should be fairly
> quickly written.

But why did you report a duplicate?

-- 
debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev
ubuntu core developer                              i speak de, en


Reply to: