On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 11:47:42PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 10/2/22 22:02, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Michael Biebl <bi...@debian.org> writes: > > > > > The main difference is, that the renaming caused an error message by > > > apt, so you knew something needed to be fixed. > > > > One could argue that having non-free but not non-free-firmware is > > sufficiently strange that it would be worth a suppressable apt warning > > (that you could turn off in apt.conf). I have no idea how easy that would > > be to implement, though. > > Hi! > > I would very much prefer having this implemented in the base_files package. > This is *the* package that follows releases, so that's IMO the best > location. > > I would hate having to use an upgrade program like in Ubuntu. :/ > > An easy check could be: > 1/ are we upgrading from base-files << 12.3 (we're currently at 12.2 in Sid) > AND > 2/ is there the non-free repo installed in the default sources.list > AND > 3/ non-free-firmware repo isn't installed > > THEN > > warn user with debconf. > > Checking the configuration of a non-free and non-free-firmware is kind of > hard, because just reading/parsing source.list and source.list.d that could > be filled with non-debian repos can be quite hard. Though we could imagine > tricks, like where both repo would include a special package present only > for that test, and we just see if it is available with apt-cache policy for > example (this is just an idea... not sure if there's better options).
Really all you need is if [ -n "$(apt-get indextargets 'Component: non-free' 'Origin: Debian')" ] && [ -z "$(apt-get indextargets 'Component: non-free-firmware' 'Origin: Debian')" ]; then debconf prompt fi I mean you could filter on codenames too but meh. (CC me if you want me to get a reply in my INBOX, I may not see it otherwise, I'm not subscribed, just receiving via NNTP gateway :D) -- debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev ubuntu core developer i speak de, en