Hello Julian,
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 11:47:14AM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Control: notfound -1 2.2.4
> Control: merge 879786 -1
I read the man page on stable, i.e. 2.2.4. if I'm not mistaken, thus
the version. (The system in question is different, though).
> 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
I just did this upgrade on an (now oldstable) machine and got the
described output (no longer reproducible). This machine is,
unfortunately, rarely updated.
> > 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?
Apologies, after discovering the missing content in apt-secure(8) I
searched for the solution and intended to report this (hiding errors
is no good) as new bug. Then I saw #879786 and instead of reporting a
new bug, I send this to this bug, which seemed applicable.
So if apt in Testing/Unstable has an expanded apt-secure(8), then this
bug can be of course closed, otherwise the content should IMHO be
added there (it's probably just a few lines). I skimmed over #931566,
if this implies the error will not occur in the future, then of course
this could be closed without action (but then the error message
pointing to apt-secure(8) might need to be updated as well).
I personally would prefere an update of apt-secure(8).
Greetings
Helge
--
Dr. Helge Kreutzmann debian@helgefjell.de
Dipl.-Phys. http://www.helgefjell.de/debian.php
64bit GNU powered gpg signed mail preferred
Help keep free software "libre": http://www.ffii.de/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature