Hi Paul, On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 10:17:28AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Thu, 2023-07-20 at 22:12 +0200, Daniel Gröber wrote: > > > It seems packages from the debian-security repository are not affected by > > this increased priority and will not get intalled as a result. > > This was documented in the release notes for Debian bullseye: > > https://www.debian.org/releases/bullseye/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#security-archive
Now that you mention it I remember reading this and getting quite irritated. Probably why I forgot about it. Do you have any references on how this decision came to be? > I have updated a few wiki pages that mention APT::Default-Release too. > > https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable?action=diff&rev1=144&rev2=145 > https://wiki.debian.org/DebianEdu/Status/Bullseye?action=diff&rev1=107&rev2=108 > https://wiki.debian.org/Wajig?action=diff&rev1=20&rev2=21 > https://wiki.debian.org/FunambolInstallation?action=diff&rev1=9&rev2=10 > > If there is other documentation of APT::Default-Release that should get > updated, please let us know so that we can fix it. One mention I found is in Raphaël and Roland's DAH (now in CC): https://debian-handbook.info/browse/stable/sect.apt-get.html#sect.apt-upgrade The places I'm most concerned about, people's brains and random web sites, aren't so easily fixed unfortunately. Advice to set this is splattered all over the web, I really don't understand why we made a change so seemingly ill advised as this? A web search for "Debian Default-Release security" didn't reveal anything talking about this problem, especially not our release notes, so I think this change didn't get the publicity it deserves at the very least. What I don't understand is why the security repo codename wasn't changed to $codename/security? Wouldn't that be handled correctly by APT? Unless the /update string in particular had special handling? Thanks, --Daniel