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

Bug#1041990: marked as done (please make source.list file names more clear)

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 --- 
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 --- 
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_Chichevache

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: