Your message dated Wed, 26 Jul 2023 16:45:15 +0200 with message-id <20230726144515.abqtrtul5bwmonlv@crossbow> and subject line Re: Bug#1041990: please make source.list file names more clear has caused the Debian Bug report #1041990, regarding please make source.list file names more clear to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1041990: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1041990 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: please make source.list file names more clear
- From: Marc Haber <mh+debian-packages@zugschlus.de>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 14:16:23 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 169028738323.1374065.11976136545331350702.reportbug@fan.zugschlus.de>
Package: apt Version: 2.7.2 Severity: wishlist Hi, I was trying to find out whether there is support for an /etc/apt/sources or /etc/apt/sources.sources file. From what I guess from the sources.list(5) manpage, *.sources files are only permitted inside /etc/apt/sources.list.d, so the only file that apt ready outside that directory is actually the traditional /etc/apt/sources.list in old format. I would be nice if that would be spelled out more clear in the manual page; if I deduced things wrongly, then it is even more important to have this spelled out in the docs. Greetings Marc
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: 1041990-done@bugs.debian.org
- Cc: Marc Haber <mh+debian-packages@zugschlus.de>
- Subject: Re: Bug#1041990: please make source.list file names more clear
- From: David Kalnischkies <david@kalnischkies.de>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 16:45:15 +0200
- Message-id: <20230726144515.abqtrtul5bwmonlv@crossbow>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 169028738323.1374065.11976136545331350702.reportbug@fan.zugschlus.de>
- References: <[🔎] 169028738323.1374065.11976136545331350702.reportbug@fan.zugschlus.de>
On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 02:16:23PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > I was trying to find out whether there is support for an > /etc/apt/sources or /etc/apt/sources.sources file. From what I guess > from the sources.list(5) manpage, *.sources files are only permitted > inside /etc/apt/sources.list.d, so the only file that apt ready outside > that directory is actually the traditional /etc/apt/sources.list in old > format. I would be nice if that would be spelled out more clear in the > manual page; if I deduced things wrongly, then it is even more important > to have this spelled out in the docs. The very first sentence of the sources.list(5) manpage starts with: | The source list /etc/apt/sources.list and the files contained in | /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ are […] What is allowed in the sources.list.d directory is spelled out in the following section with the horribly obscure name "SOURCES.LIST.D". I can't imagine how the man page could say any more prominently that the princess^Wfile you are looking for doesn't exist without an explicit long list of all the stuff that doesn't exist like unicorns, people reading man pages and sources{.sources,} files. No, I don't think such a list would be a good idea as people will start hunting for bicorns¹ as suspiciously those were omitted from the list… I am therefore closing as not a bug. Best regards David Kalnischkies ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicorn_and_ChichevacheAttachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---