Re: jessie-updates gone
Le mer. 10 avr. 2019 à 13:24, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a écrit : > > JFTR, jessie-updates is back. > Thanks !
Re: jessie-updates gone
On 26/03/2019 11:08, Jakob Hirsch wrote: > Hi, > > so I noticed this morning that jessie-updates is gone from the mirrors. > After some research, I found that this was kind of announced in > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/03/msg6.html. > Question is now, what should I put in my sources.list? I used > https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Using#Using_Debian_Long_Term_Support_.28LTS.29 > as the authorative source, but this is obviously outdated now. > > So, am I ok by just using these two? > > deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ jessie main contrib non-free > deb http://security.debian.org/ jessie/updates main contrib non-free JFTR, jessie-updates is back. Cheers, Emilio
Re: jessie-updates gone
On 4/2/19 12:59 PM, Andy Smith wrote: Hi Miroslav, On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 11:53:50AM +0200, Miroslav Skoric wrote: On 4/1/19 8:14 PM, Andy Smith wrote: I do understand that re-adding an empty jessie-updates directory will silence a lot of warnings from apt update, and thus would avoid the questions from end users that I have seen in a lot of places, but… I can't help thinking that although it is bad that these users were confused, at least they now understand that the level of support has changed. -1 Programmers' decision that led thousands of users to ask themselves what was wrong with their apt update was a very bad marketing for Debian. The alternative is that those users continue using Debian without realising that their packages stopped being supported by the maintainers and security team and are now supported by LTS alone. Is that a better outcome? Cheers, Andy IMHO, that alone (realising that some packages stopped being supported) doesn't help much anyway. Various software stopped being supported by their originators in the past. Sooner or later the users get aware of that fact. But many continue using that 'old' software if they do not have better alternatives. But in this very case, 'apt-get update' started returning an "error" msg that looked as if something went terribly wrong with Debian repositories (that did work fine just a day before), and that confused the users - at least myself. Regards, Misko
Re: jessie-updates gone
Hi Ben, On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 03:32:10PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Wed, 2019-04-03 at 00:02 +, Andy Smith wrote: > > Personally I'm not bothered either way about whether > > "-updates" remains something that can be in sources.list > > without causing update errors, but I am more concerned that a lot of > > users may have ended up transitioning to LTS without realising that, > > and wonder if there is any good way to help reduce that. > > I don't think this is the big problem that you think it is. I'm not sure how big of a problem it is especially when I'm not the one who would make any changes, and whoever does will have a list of other things they want to work on. As I say I was just wondering if there is anything simple that can be done to help reduce the number of these users. But I gather that you either don't feel it is a problem or else it's not one that justifies making any changes, and I accept you will know better than I so I will stop going on about it now! Cheers, Andy
Re: jessie-updates gone
Le mer. 3 avr. 2019 à 12:44, Jonas Meurer a écrit : > Informing users about ending security support (e.g. by local > notifications) could definitely be improved - but that's a separate topic. > We should definitely fork this discussion into a new subject. However I wonder if it should be created into debian-lts's mailing list or if it exists a more appropriate list for discussing about this kind of conceptual improvement of Debian packaging subsystem and life-cycle handling ? In the meanwhile, here are some of my thoughts and comments. Le mer. 3 avr. 2019 à 12:25, Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit : > On 03.04.19 09:54, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: > > c 3) when requesting installation of unsupported packages, provide a > >warning > > > >For c 3), this could be similar to when e.g. apt/apt-get pauses to ask > >due to dependencies, and overridable with the same options. > > > >However, as Pierre says, this is quite a bit of extra work for package > >system developers/maintainers. > > I hope that's what we discuss here ;-) Yes, precisely. I admit I went over the current situation of Jessie, who's already part of a past situation in my mind, and started to look forward at where we could head to for next (next) time. I was at first very enthusiastic at adding a "not to remove stretch-updates/" mention to the procedure when Stretch will enter LTS, but I now fell some more could be devised to better handle the situation. I usually look far ahead, then work backward to connect the dots. My thoughts was directed for Debian Bulleyes at best, and maybe to the next one. Currently Debian Stretch is stable and thus (almost) settled in stone (to be clear, this is not a criticism but relate a fact about a feature I truly appreciate). Buster, for his own, has entered the freeze state, so we can also consider it almost settled in stone. So thinking about improving how Debian handle all this fast bring us to Debian Bulleyes or Bookworm. With this scope in mind, and thinking far ahead with something like a blank page, and the opportunity to add code where required, I believe theses actual considerations would deserve a well thought design to support spot on all the conceived edge cases. Le mer. 3 avr. 2019 à 12:25, Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit : > >On 2019-04-03 02:02, Andy Smith wrote: > > c 2) a transition into LTS should probably be accompagnied with a > >default run of check-support-status > > maybe create new point release where base-files depend on > debian-security-support If the maintainers (or the LTS team) would accept to modify the dependency tree, this could help on the already stable and frozen releases. Nonetheless, if I understand how packages are upgraded, wouldn't it requires the download and reinstall of theses essential packages (because of the version-number bump). This doesn't seems very elegant. And I must add that I'm not very found of this as it would change dependencies on the base packages. I would tick at seeing such kind of essential packages being updated. Moreoever this would be not for technical reasons but for organisational reasons. Would I stumble upon this notification, I would wonder what have happened to the base package being modified during the course of the life-cycle of a released and stable version of Debian. IMO, this doesn't fit much with the philosophy of Debian not to touch anything in the release once being tagged stable. Except of course for security updates and other very important updates. Would this kind of update you suggest, it probably would have brought me to post something on debian-user's mailing list to try to understand what have happened. Le mer. 3 avr. 2019 à 12:25, Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit : > > >On 2019-04-03 02:02, Andy Smith wrote: > > > >>c) if getting warnings from "apt update" does seem to be an > >>effective final way to reach such users, would it be a good idea > >>to find a way to have apt tell them about their transition into > >>LTS? > > On 03.04.19 09:54, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: > >So, sort of a variant on Pierre Fourès's suggestion? > > > >I like that. > > I agree. > It's better to warn than error, better when LTS starts than year later. > > Just note that expiring the archive is something to consider - people who > put 'Acquire::Check-Valid-Until "0";' into their configs may forget it > there, so they will miss such warnings within next release cycle. To my view, I think the best could be to add meta-informations into the packaging subsystem, and this on two level of scope. One would be repository based, the other would be package based (but wouldn't be stored in the packages but as per-package meta-informations in the repositories). For the package-based meta-information, for the Debian Team (might it be the mainteners team, the security team, the LTS team), or for the not affiliated ELTS team, or for any organisation running a repository compatible with Debian distributions, it would be nice to add some kind of flag to
Re: jessie-updates gone
On Wed, 2019-04-03 at 00:02 +, Andy Smith wrote: > Hi Ben, > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 12:23:46AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > Debian LTS is a team within Debian. It's separate from the main > > security team and the stable release managers, but it is no less > > part > > of Debian. > > Sure, I do understand that. My employer is one of the LTS sponsors. > > However what I am saying is, there are clearly quite a few users of > Debian who were surprised and confused about jessie-updates going > away. I think that means those users also did not know that they > transitioned from relying on the security team and release managers > to the LTS team. > > Clearly the LTS team cannot provide the same level of support, I don't think this is clearly the case. > so > wouldn't you agree that it is important that users realise when they > go from one state to another? Yes, but that doesn't mean that if some users don't realise it is a failure on our part. > > The transition to extended support by the LTS team has always been > > announced, in any case: > > Absolutely, but these users did not read those announcements, or > else I think they wouldn't have been so confused by jessie-updates > going away. If users don't read announcements then the EOL will come as a surprise too! [...] > Personally I'm not bothered either way about whether > "-updates" remains something that can be in sources.list > without causing update errors, but I am more concerned that a lot of > users may have ended up transitioning to LTS without realising that, > and wonder if there is any good way to help reduce that. I don't think this is the big problem that you think it is. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Q. Which is the greater problem in the world today, ignorance or apathy? A. I don't know and I couldn't care less. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: jessie-updates gone
Hey Andy, Andy Smith: > Clearly the LTS team cannot provide the same level of support, so > wouldn't you agree that it is important that users realise when they > go from one state to another? I don't think I follow here. In my eyes, it's perfectly fine if Debian users who don't follow any announcements (which - unfortunately - is true for the majority of users) keep using a release even after its security support was taken over by the LTS team. Informing users about ending security support (e.g. by local notifications) could definitely be improved - but that's a separate topic. Cheers jonas signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: jessie-updates gone
On 2019-04-03 02:02, Andy Smith wrote: c) if getting warnings from "apt update" does seem to be an effective final way to reach such users, would it be a good idea to find a way to have apt tell them about their transition into LTS? On 03.04.19 09:54, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: So, sort of a variant on Pierre Fourès's suggestion? I like that. I agree. It's better to warn than error, better when LTS starts than year later. Just note that expiring the archive is something to consider - people who put 'Acquire::Check-Valid-Until "0";' into their configs may forget it there, so they will miss such warnings within next release cycle. Additionally: c 2) a transition into LTS should probably be accompagnied with a default run of check-support-status maybe create new point release where base-files depend on debian-security-support unfortunately that won't help users who only use unattended-upgrades for security upgrades. c 3) when requesting installation of unsupported packages, provide a warning check-support-status should do that. For c 3), this could be similar to when e.g. apt/apt-get pauses to ask due to dependencies, and overridable with the same options. However, as Pierre says, this is quite a bit of extra work for package system developers/maintainers. I hope that's what we discuss here ;-) -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Christian Science Programming: "Let God Debug It!".
Re: jessie-updates gone
On 2019-04-03 02:02, Andy Smith wrote: c) if getting warnings from "apt update" does seem to be an effective final way to reach such users, would it be a good idea to find a way to have apt tell them about their transition into LTS? So, sort of a variant on Pierre Fourès's suggestion? I like that. Additionally: c 2) a transition into LTS should probably be accompagnied with a default run of check-support-status c 3) when requesting installation of unsupported packages, provide a warning For c 3), this could be similar to when e.g. apt/apt-get pauses to ask due to dependencies, and overridable with the same options. However, as Pierre says, this is quite a bit of extra work for package system developers/maintainers. -- Cheers, Jan
Re: jessie-updates gone
Hi Ben, On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 12:23:46AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > Debian LTS is a team within Debian. It's separate from the main > security team and the stable release managers, but it is no less part > of Debian. Sure, I do understand that. My employer is one of the LTS sponsors. However what I am saying is, there are clearly quite a few users of Debian who were surprised and confused about jessie-updates going away. I think that means those users also did not know that they transitioned from relying on the security team and release managers to the LTS team. Clearly the LTS team cannot provide the same level of support, so wouldn't you agree that it is important that users realise when they go from one state to another? > The transition to extended support by the LTS team has always been > announced, in any case: Absolutely, but these users did not read those announcements, or else I think they wouldn't have been so confused by jessie-updates going away. The majority of end user posts about this that I have seen have not been saying, "this is annoying, just make it stop", they have been more like, "what is going on? Is my sources.list incorrect?" i.e. I'm not convinced these posts are coming from people who read any of the various announcement emails. I've supported a couple of my own users with questions about the apt update errors and none them knew what LTS was or that they had already been using it for nearly a year. From their point of view while "apt update" continued to work without complaint, they were enjoying full Debian support. I have a feeling this wrong impression may be quite common. So, various people are asking for an empty jessie-updates to be put back because of all the confused users and the need to make changes to sources.list. I am asking: a) doesn't that suggest that many or all of these users missed that they transitioned to LTS back in June 2018, and only noticed that something was amiss now that jessie-updates has gone? b) if in future Debian does leave an empty stretch-updates then doesn't that mean that these users will continue being blissfully unaware for an even longer period of time? c) if getting warnings from "apt update" does seem to be an effective final way to reach such users, would it be a good idea to find a way to have apt tell them about their transition into LTS? Personally I'm not bothered either way about whether "-updates" remains something that can be in sources.list without causing update errors, but I am more concerned that a lot of users may have ended up transitioning to LTS without realising that, and wonder if there is any good way to help reduce that. Cheers, Andy
Re: jessie-updates gone
On Tue, 2019-04-02 at 19:30 +, Andy Smith wrote: > Hi Matus, > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 08:17:54PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 03:09:03PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > > > On 02.04.19 10:59, Andy Smith wrote: > > > So are you really saying that your proposed solution is just to tell > > > people who aren't currently reading announcements and are not running > > > check-support-status to try harder? > > > > I'm trying to say that people using LTS should not notice ot of nothing that > > the -updates archive is now gone. That should happen after LTS is over. > > Sure but you are aware that every Debian user becomes an LTS user > when -updates stops being a source of point releases and > further updates end up in /updates, right? > > I am not talking about telling *LTS* users anything. I am asking how > is an uninformed user of Debian supposed to know that they are no > longer supported by Debian, but only by LTS? That they have in fact > *become* an LTS user? [...] Debian LTS is a team within Debian. It's separate from the main security team and the stable release managers, but it is no less part of Debian. The transition to extended support by the LTS team has always been announced, in any case: https://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/2014/msg4.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/2016/msg5.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/2018/msg2.html Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Q. Which is the greater problem in the world today, ignorance or apathy? A. I don't know and I couldn't care less. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: jessie-updates gone
Hi Matus, On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 08:17:54PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > >On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 03:09:03PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > >>On 02.04.19 10:59, Andy Smith wrote: > >So are you really saying that your proposed solution is just to tell > >people who aren't currently reading announcements and are not running > >check-support-status to try harder? > > I'm trying to say that people using LTS should not notice ot of nothing that > the -updates archive is now gone. That should happen after LTS is over. Sure but you are aware that every Debian user becomes an LTS user when -updates stops being a source of point releases and further updates end up in /updates, right? I am not talking about telling *LTS* users anything. I am asking how is an uninformed user of Debian supposed to know that they are no longer supported by Debian, but only by LTS? That they have in fact *become* an LTS user? In this instance they got the hint because jessie-updates went away. The proposal is to not make jessie-updates go away but instead just empty it. Then these users will not get informed. While there is no proposal on how to get the word to these users, I would argue it is best to continue removing -updates when it is done with. I would rather there was a better way to communicate with users though, that does not require them to subscribe to mailing lists or run optional commands. As to the separate issue of whether to keep an empty -updates to silence complaints from "apt update", I don't really care either way. I use config management so removing it everywhere is pretty trivial. :) Cheers, Andy
Re: jessie-updates gone
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 03:09:03PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 02.04.19 10:59, Andy Smith wrote: >The alternative is that those users continue using Debian without >realising that their packages stopped being supported by the >maintainers and security team and are now supported by LTS alone. this should happen when LTS is over, not before. also, there's check-support-status for unsupported packages. On 02.04.19 14:43, Andy Smith wrote: Sorry I am not sure I follow. Miroslav said, "led thousands of users to ask themselves what was wrong with their apt update". I cannot personally say that I saw thousands, but I did see tens (some of which are my users that I support), which suggests there are quite a lot more of these users that we don't see. You understand that these users do not currently read the announcements about support life times and do not currently run check-support-status, right? Otherwise they would not have been confused about what happened with jessie-updates. So are you really saying that your proposed solution is just to tell people who aren't currently reading announcements and are not running check-support-status to try harder? I'm trying to say that people using LTS should not notice ot of nothing that the -updates archive is now gone. That should happen after LTS is over. dropping the the -backorts is fine, maybe even just after LTS startes. note that the -updates usually contains packages that are continued to be supported. This does not apply for -backports. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. "The box said 'Requires Windows 95 or better', so I bought a Macintosh".
Re: jessie-updates gone
On 01/04/2019 15:51, Pierre Fourès wrote:
> Thanks Holger,
>
> If I understood good, this mean that tzdata will get updated through
> "deb http://security.debian.org/ jessie/updates main" even if it's not
> a "security" update per se ?
Yes. tzdata and other such updates go into jessie-security because there's no
other place for them with the closing of jessie{,-updates}. It's been that way
since for a long time. The last tzdata and libdatetime-timezone-perl were
uploaded to jessie-security earlier today.
> So, to Jessie users, everything work as expected (we still get not
> security updates) even if it doesn't goes through the way it used to ?
>
> Le lun. 1 avr. 2019 à 15:40, Holger Levsen a écrit :
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 02:29:23PM +0200, Pierre Fourès wrote:
>>> Now that Jessie is in LTS and that jessie-updates/ is gone, does this
>>> also mean there won't be any other updates to tzdata, clamav, or
>>> similar (timely dependent's) packages ?
>>
>> no.
>>
>>> Or if still updated, where does we got them from ? I guess it's not
>>> from security updates ?
>>
>> from LTS.
>>
>> to clarify:
>>
>> this is LTS:
>>
>> deb http://security.debian.org/ jessie/updates main
>>
>> this is gone:
>>
>> deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ jessie-updates main
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> tschau,
>> Holger
>>
>> ---
>>holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
>>PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C
>>
>> In Europe there are people prosecuted by courts because they saved other
>> people
>> from drowning in the Mediterranean Sea. That is almost as absurd as if
>> there
>> were people being prosecuted because they save humans from drowning in the
>> sea.
>
>
Re: jessie-updates gone
Le mar. 2 avr. 2019 à 15:09, Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit : > > >> On 4/1/19 8:14 PM, Andy Smith wrote: > >> >I do understand that re-adding an empty jessie-updates directory > >> >will silence a lot of warnings from apt update, and thus would avoid > >> >the questions from end users that I have seen in a lot of places, > >> >but… I can't help thinking that although it is bad that these users > >> >were confused, at least they now understand that the level of > >> >support has changed. > > >On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 11:53:50AM +0200, Miroslav Skoric wrote: > >> -1 > >> > >> Programmers' decision that led thousands of users to ask themselves what > >> was > >> wrong with their apt update was a very bad marketing for Debian. > > On 02.04.19 10:59, Andy Smith wrote: > >The alternative is that those users continue using Debian without > >realising that their packages stopped being supported by the > >maintainers and security team and are now supported by LTS alone. > > this should happen when LTS is over, not before. > also, there's check-support-status for unsupported packages. > I personally understand the both points of view. If nothing had occurred, I would have left things running thinking I'm all covered up. It's nice I learnt so much about this. My major eye-opener was the situation about the backports being deprecated. But at the same time, I have many servers (including many virtual instance) where apt-get went broken. I also have automated install scripts (not yet moved to stretch) who need to be modified and re-tested. This is not a major thing to fix, but this will take some time nonetheless. And I'm very glad this happened while I was not in an emergency, required to reinstall something as fast as possible. I think it could be nice to be able to avoid unnecessary fiddling on the servers. Especially when these kind of changes might impact a lot people. This is maybe more work involved, or this might not be doable for reasons I'm not aware, I don't know, but why not even keep [distrib]-updates up-and-running (as its intended use) ? While in LTS, the security updates would still go to the security repository, and non-security updates would go to the stable-updates/ repository. This would incur no conceptual mess about what's happening or not. For standard usage, on supported architectures, all would goes smooth, as one could expect. For my share, I would have been warned about the backports being deprecated and moved to the archives and would have been happy for the rest staying up and running (as I already knew Jessie was in LTS, with all the consequences it implies). On a more preventive level, we could keep [distrib-updates] running, and then shutdown the security repository to explicitly show the security team has ended its work, and then create a new repository dedicated to the LTS support. The ones wanting to jump in the LTS phase would do it consciously and explicitly. However the transition wouldn't be smooth as it would incur a lot of error messages. This is in some way how it works for ELTS on Wheezy. It also could be achieved more smoothly like with adding some flags on the repository and that apt-get (and friends) bring a warning to the console while proceeding the update. This warning could then be silenced through setting a flag on the concerned instances (like I did for the backports with 'Acquire::Check-Valid-Until "0";'). This would require more work involved and would need more time to propagate. But I believe this could be a nice working mechanism for the future of Debian. This warning mechanism could even be extended to help prevent situations like the following one. Since the deprecation of the backports, I had half a year to take into notice about the consequences, and then, act. I just didn't was aware of it (my fault, nonetheless it's not easy to follow everything, meaning read every announce and not skip over the one of them). Would my instances throws at me some warning like : "jessie-backports will be deprectated on July 25 2018" some month before it occurs, and then something like "jessie-backports has been deprecated since July 25 2018" would have been of great value for me. And this could be applied the same way for security transitioning to LTS. What would be even greater with this warning mechanism would be to have more overlap while the repositories are shutted down or moved to the archives. I imagine something telling me "jessie-backports has been deprecated since July 25 2018, jessie-backports is now avaible on http://archive.debian.org/, jessie-backports will be removed from the main mirrors on Mars 20 2019" some months before it accutally occurs. I thus would have had the time and set my own schedule to decide when to fiddle with /etc/apt/sources.list without causing any error on my instances. Of course, this could also be translated to something like that for the stable-updates or the security updates. I guess this is a very long term project as it is
Re: jessie-updates gone
Hi Matus, On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 03:09:03PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > On 02.04.19 10:59, Andy Smith wrote: > >The alternative is that those users continue using Debian without > >realising that their packages stopped being supported by the > >maintainers and security team and are now supported by LTS alone. > > this should happen when LTS is over, not before. > also, there's check-support-status for unsupported packages. Sorry I am not sure I follow. Miroslav said, "led thousands of users to ask themselves what was wrong with their apt update". I cannot personally say that I saw thousands, but I did see tens (some of which are my users that I support), which suggests there are quite a lot more of these users that we don't see. You understand that these users do not currently read the announcements about support life times and do not currently run check-support-status, right? Otherwise they would not have been confused about what happened with jessie-updates. So are you really saying that your proposed solution is just to tell people who aren't currently reading announcements and are not running check-support-status to try harder? I can't help thinking that this will not be effective in reaching any of those users. So the situation remains that either these uninformed users will be complained at about -updates by "apt update", or else they will continue to use without knowing that it is no longer supported by package maintainers and security team. Which outcome is worse, for those users? When you say, "this should happen when LTS is over, not before" are you saying that you don't feel it is important that people know when support passes from maintainers+security to LTS alone, only when even LTS has ended? If so then I'm afraid I don't agree. Speaking as one of the LTS sponsors I think it is important that users know what Debian LTS is, how it is funded and what its limitations are. Otherwise people will, by human nature, just assume it is still supported the same. Cheers, Andy
Re: jessie-updates gone
On 4/1/19 8:14 PM, Andy Smith wrote: >I do understand that re-adding an empty jessie-updates directory >will silence a lot of warnings from apt update, and thus would avoid >the questions from end users that I have seen in a lot of places, >but… I can't help thinking that although it is bad that these users >were confused, at least they now understand that the level of >support has changed. On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 11:53:50AM +0200, Miroslav Skoric wrote: -1 Programmers' decision that led thousands of users to ask themselves what was wrong with their apt update was a very bad marketing for Debian. On 02.04.19 10:59, Andy Smith wrote: The alternative is that those users continue using Debian without realising that their packages stopped being supported by the maintainers and security team and are now supported by LTS alone. this should happen when LTS is over, not before. also, there's check-support-status for unsupported packages. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. 10 GOTO 10 : REM (C) Bill Gates 1998, All Rights Reserved!
Re: jessie-updates gone
Hi Miroslav, On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 11:53:50AM +0200, Miroslav Skoric wrote: > On 4/1/19 8:14 PM, Andy Smith wrote: > > >I do understand that re-adding an empty jessie-updates directory > >will silence a lot of warnings from apt update, and thus would avoid > >the questions from end users that I have seen in a lot of places, > >but… I can't help thinking that although it is bad that these users > >were confused, at least they now understand that the level of > >support has changed. > > -1 > > Programmers' decision that led thousands of users to ask themselves what was > wrong with their apt update was a very bad marketing for Debian. The alternative is that those users continue using Debian without realising that their packages stopped being supported by the maintainers and security team and are now supported by LTS alone. Is that a better outcome? Cheers, Andy
Re: jessie-updates gone
On 4/1/19 8:14 PM, Andy Smith wrote: I do understand that re-adding an empty jessie-updates directory will silence a lot of warnings from apt update, and thus would avoid the questions from end users that I have seen in a lot of places, but… I can't help thinking that although it is bad that these users were confused, at least they now understand that the level of support has changed. -1 Programmers' decision that led thousands of users to ask themselves what was wrong with their apt update was a very bad marketing for Debian.
Re: jessie-updates gone
On 2019-04-01 20:14, Andy Smith wrote: I don't know what the answer is other than having apt itself show a warning about the levels of support changing, but until we work out a better solution, isn't having the -updates suite go away at least a final chance to get the user's attention? I don't see how this significantly differs from having to have an LTS-specific directory. Based on the argument above, invalidating all regular Jessie directories and using an LTS-specific directory serves that purpose far better. I think any such change is actively negative to anyone maintaining a system or a set of systems, though. > How about a package update at the cut-over point with a NEWS > changelog saying something like, "this distribution is now only > supported by LTS; you should upgrade to continue to enjoy the usual > level of support. For more information about the LTS project please > see: https://…; ? This might help, except for the "see: https://; part. When proposing changes in distribution handling, imagine a stressed admin on a text-only console in a cramped server room somewhere, who is investigating problems. Try to consider what kind of information and changes that are actually useful, and which will complicate matters to the point that it makes the admin's job difficult or impossible. -- Cheers, Jan
Re: jessie-updates gone
On 4/1/19 3:50 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: We have asked if it's going to be re-added, even if empty, to avoid people using jessie from seeing errors when updateing package lists. do I have to fill a bugreport to get it back? Yes, do it please.
Re: jessie-updates gone
Hello, On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 03:50:05PM +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > On 01.04.19 13:40, Holger Levsen wrote: > >this is gone: > > > >deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ jessie-updates main > > formerly volatile. > > We have asked if it's going to be re-added, even if empty, to avoid people > using jessie from seeing errors when updateing package lists. > > do I have to fill a bugreport to get it back? I do understand that re-adding an empty jessie-updates directory will silence a lot of warnings from apt update, and thus would avoid the questions from end users that I have seen in a lot of places, but… I can't help thinking that although it is bad that these users were confused, at least they now understand that the level of support has changed. Is there not a risk in future that these people will merrily go on using an empty buster-updates without ever realising that they are using a distribution with updates only from the LTS project? I don't know what the answer is other than having apt itself show a warning about the levels of support changing, but until we work out a better solution, isn't having the -updates suite go away at least a final chance to get the user's attention? How about a package update at the cut-over point with a NEWS changelog saying something like, "this distribution is now only supported by LTS; you should upgrade to continue to enjoy the usual level of support. For more information about the LTS project please see: https://…; ? Cheers, Andy
Re: jessie-updates gone
Le lun. 1 avr. 2019 à 16:04, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a écrit :
>
> On 01/04/2019 15:51, Pierre Fourès wrote:
> > Thanks Holger,
> >
> > If I understood good, this mean that tzdata will get updated through
> > "deb http://security.debian.org/ jessie/updates main" even if it's not
> > a "security" update per se ?
>
> Yes. tzdata and other such updates go into jessie-security because there's no
> other place for them with the closing of jessie{,-updates}. It's been that way
> since for a long time. The last tzdata and libdatetime-timezone-perl were
> uploaded to jessie-security earlier today.
>
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2019/04/msg1.html
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2019/04/msg2.html
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Emilio
Yup it clarifies a lot. Thanks you all to take the time to outline it all.
Re: jessie-updates gone
On 01/04/2019 15:50, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: >> this is gone: >> >> deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ jessie-updates main > > formerly volatile. > > We have asked if it's going to be re-added, even if empty, to avoid people > using jessie from seeing errors when updateing package lists. > > do I have to fill a bugreport to get it back? It will get back, we're waiting for an ftp-master to have the necessary cycles to do the archive work. The plan is to document what needs to get archived and what not after a release becomes LTS to avoid this sort of problem in the future (e.g. when stretch becomes LTS, and non-LTS architectures get archived). Cheers, Emilio
Re: jessie-updates gone
On 01/04/2019 15:51, Pierre Fourès wrote:
> Thanks Holger,
>
> If I understood good, this mean that tzdata will get updated through
> "deb http://security.debian.org/ jessie/updates main" even if it's not
> a "security" update per se ?
Yes. tzdata and other such updates go into jessie-security because there's no
other place for them with the closing of jessie{,-updates}. It's been that way
since for a long time. The last tzdata and libdatetime-timezone-perl were
uploaded to jessie-security earlier today.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2019/04/msg1.html
https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2019/04/msg2.html
Hope that helps.
Emilio
Re: jessie-updates gone
Thanks Holger, If I understood good, this mean that tzdata will get updated through "deb http://security.debian.org/ jessie/updates main" even if it's not a "security" update per se ? So, to Jessie users, everything work as expected (we still get not security updates) even if it doesn't goes through the way it used to ? Le lun. 1 avr. 2019 à 15:40, Holger Levsen a écrit : > > On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 02:29:23PM +0200, Pierre Fourès wrote: > > Now that Jessie is in LTS and that jessie-updates/ is gone, does this > > also mean there won't be any other updates to tzdata, clamav, or > > similar (timely dependent's) packages ? > > no. > > > Or if still updated, where does we got them from ? I guess it's not > > from security updates ? > > from LTS. > > to clarify: > > this is LTS: > > deb http://security.debian.org/ jessie/updates main > > this is gone: > > deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ jessie-updates main > > > > -- > tschau, > Holger > > --- >holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org >PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C > > In Europe there are people prosecuted by courts because they saved other > people > from drowning in the Mediterranean Sea. That is almost as absurd as if > there > were people being prosecuted because they save humans from drowning in the > sea.
Re: jessie-updates gone
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 02:29:23PM +0200, Pierre Fourès wrote: Now that Jessie is in LTS and that jessie-updates/ is gone, does this also mean there won't be any other updates to tzdata, clamav, or similar (timely dependent's) packages ? no. good. Or if still updated, where does we got them from ? I guess it's not from security updates ? On 01.04.19 13:40, Holger Levsen wrote: from LTS. to clarify: this is LTS: deb http://security.debian.org/ jessie/updates main formerly security (only) updates. this is gone: deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ jessie-updates main formerly volatile. We have asked if it's going to be re-added, even if empty, to avoid people using jessie from seeing errors when updateing package lists. do I have to fill a bugreport to get it back? -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. M$ Win's are shit, do not use it !
Re: jessie-updates gone
On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 02:29:23PM +0200, Pierre Fourès wrote: > Now that Jessie is in LTS and that jessie-updates/ is gone, does this > also mean there won't be any other updates to tzdata, clamav, or > similar (timely dependent's) packages ? no. > Or if still updated, where does we got them from ? I guess it's not > from security updates ? from LTS. to clarify: this is LTS: deb http://security.debian.org/ jessie/updates main this is gone: deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ jessie-updates main -- tschau, Holger --- holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C In Europe there are people prosecuted by courts because they saved other people from drowning in the Mediterranean Sea. That is almost as absurd as if there were people being prosecuted because they save humans from drowning in the sea. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: jessie-updates gone
Thanks a lot Adam for the clarification. Now that Jessie is in LTS and that jessie-updates/ is gone, does this also mean there won't be any other updates to tzdata, clamav, or similar (timely dependent's) packages ? Or if still updated, where does we got them from ? I guess it's not from security updates ? Regards, Pierre. Le ven. 29 mars 2019 à 17:02, Adam D. Barratt a écrit : > > On Fri, 2019-03-29 at 11:13 +0100, Pierre Fourès wrote: > > The way I understand it, but I asked for clarification and > > confirmation in my previous message [1], is that all « updates » goes > > into -proposed-updates/, but the one who need to be quickly applied > > into the distribution (but aren't security updates) are duplicated > > from -proposed-updates/ into -updates/. Theses are the updates who > > can't wait and must be applied between the point releases. Then, when > > point releases occurs, all packages in -proposed-updates/ moves into > > the stable repository of the distribution. They are automatically > > removed from -proposed-updates/. This isn't true for the -updates/ > > repository as it requires manual pruning. Nonetheless, all packages > > in > > -updates/ went into the stable repository (from the -proposed-updates > > they originated from) when the point-release occurred. So nothing is > > lost. But is that right ? > > Yes - see https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/03/msg000 > 10.html , linked from every post to the debian-stable-announce list. > (There will probably be a better URL somewhere on release.d.o once > someone finds sufficient tuits to actually make it.) > > The removal of packages from p-u after adding them to stable is part of > the actions performed by ftp-master during the point release (easily > done as the package sets are the same). Technically, it is possible for > an update from -updates / p-u to not be included in a point release, > but that will usually be due to a regression being found before the > point release, and in such cases there will likely be a follow-up > update. > > Regards, > > Adam >
Re: jessie-updates gone
On Fri, 2019-03-29 at 11:13 +0100, Pierre Fourès wrote: > The way I understand it, but I asked for clarification and > confirmation in my previous message [1], is that all « updates » goes > into -proposed-updates/, but the one who need to be quickly applied > into the distribution (but aren't security updates) are duplicated > from -proposed-updates/ into -updates/. Theses are the updates who > can't wait and must be applied between the point releases. Then, when > point releases occurs, all packages in -proposed-updates/ moves into > the stable repository of the distribution. They are automatically > removed from -proposed-updates/. This isn't true for the -updates/ > repository as it requires manual pruning. Nonetheless, all packages > in > -updates/ went into the stable repository (from the -proposed-updates > they originated from) when the point-release occurred. So nothing is > lost. But is that right ? Yes - see https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/03/msg000 10.html , linked from every post to the debian-stable-announce list. (There will probably be a better URL somewhere on release.d.o once someone finds sufficient tuits to actually make it.) The removal of packages from p-u after adding them to stable is part of the actions performed by ftp-master during the point release (easily done as the package sets are the same). Technically, it is possible for an update from -updates / p-u to not be included in a point release, but that will usually be due to a regression being found before the point release, and in such cases there will likely be a follow-up update. Regards, Adam
Re: jessie-updates gone
On 27.03.19 11:20, Bernie Elbourn wrote: I am very grateful for all the work done here. You are all heroes! Can I gently ask if we can just blank the stretch-updates archive next time round please. Otherwise every stable machine out there now will need a change. Am 27.03.19 um 12:50 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas: That's what I meant too. I probably should have emphasized that. If it is possible to wiz up a blank jessie-updates this will save me visiting a bunch of systems throwing apt errors in next few days. I wonder if it wasn't blank already. All of its contents was supposed to be moved to jessie main archive with last point release and no content should be there after that. On 27/03/2019 13:33, Markus Koschany wrote: So the idea is to readd the empty jessie-updates directory to avoid apt errors when updating? Jörg is this possible? On 27.03.19 14:02, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: Yes, I talked to them earlier today and they agreed to bringing it back to avoid these problems on users that have jessie-updates on their sources.list. and when is this expected to happen? jessie-proposed-updates could also be brought back, though that's not enabled by default upon installation so it should be less problematic if it stays removed (though some people may have it so it wouldn't hurt to bring it back as well). I agree although I don't use it neither. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Posli tento mail 100 svojim znamim - nech vidia aky si idiot Send this email to 100 your friends - let them see what an idiot you are
Re: jessie-updates gone
Le ven. 29 mars 2019 à 10:11, Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit : > > >>On 27.03.19 11:20, Bernie Elbourn wrote: > >>>If it is possible to wiz up a blank jessie-updates this will save me > >>>visiting a bunch of systems throwing apt errors in next few days. > > >On 2019-03-27 11:50, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > >>I wonder if it wasn't blank already. All of its contents was > >>supposed to be > >>moved to jessie main archive with last point release and no content > >>should > >>be there after that. > > On 27.03.19 13:52, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > >Packages aren't moved from -updates to (old)stable, they're moved from > >p-u. Packages only get removed from -updates following manual action > >from a Release Team member. > > so, as I understand it, packages like clamav, spamassassin and others that > are in -updates may not get to main archive with a point release? > > Is there anything other needed to get them in? > > iirc, the -updates (formerly called volatile) was created to contain > packages that really need updates during distribution lifecycle, just like > antiviruses, spam filters and alike. > > They should not be lost. > The way I understand it, but I asked for clarification and confirmation in my previous message [1], is that all « updates » goes into -proposed-updates/, but the one who need to be quickly applied into the distribution (but aren't security updates) are duplicated from -proposed-updates/ into -updates/. Theses are the updates who can't wait and must be applied between the point releases. Then, when point releases occurs, all packages in -proposed-updates/ moves into the stable repository of the distribution. They are automatically removed from -proposed-updates/. This isn't true for the -updates/ repository as it requires manual pruning. Nonetheless, all packages in -updates/ went into the stable repository (from the -proposed-updates they originated from) when the point-release occurred. So nothing is lost. But is that right ? Pierre. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts/2019/03/msg00142.html
Re: jessie-updates gone
On 27.03.19 11:20, Bernie Elbourn wrote: If it is possible to wiz up a blank jessie-updates this will save me visiting a bunch of systems throwing apt errors in next few days. On 2019-03-27 11:50, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: I wonder if it wasn't blank already. All of its contents was supposed to be moved to jessie main archive with last point release and no content should be there after that. On 27.03.19 13:52, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Packages aren't moved from -updates to (old)stable, they're moved from p-u. Packages only get removed from -updates following manual action from a Release Team member. so, as I understand it, packages like clamav, spamassassin and others that are in -updates may not get to main archive with a point release? Is there anything other needed to get them in? iirc, the -updates (formerly called volatile) was created to contain packages that really need updates during distribution lifecycle, just like antiviruses, spam filters and alike. They should not be lost. In the case of jessie, it appears there was still at least an old kernel package in there. luckily, nothing important. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Emacs is a complicated operating system without good text editor.
Re: jessie-updates gone
Le mer. 27 mars 2019 à 14:52, Adam D. Barratt a écrit : > > Packages aren't moved from -updates to (old)stable, they're moved from > p-u. Packages only get removed from -updates following manual action > from a Release Team member. > > In the case of jessie, it appears there was still at least an old kernel > package in there. To clarify my understanding, when point-releases are published, does this mean that packages already present in -updates also get in the stable repository ? Thus they coexists as duplicates up to a Release Team member manually clean the -updates/ repository ? Does this also mean that packages in -updates are also in -proposed-updates until the point-release is released ? Thus, -updates/ is just some kind of bypass from the -proposed-updates/ for some packages to get to the running instances faster and before the point-releases ? This now seems to me that they are a bit out of the official release cycle. If this is right, I have gained more clarity on how it works. I naively thought that the proposed-updates was like « testing updates ». And then, when considered stables, that they was transferred to the stable-updates. And then that they was transferred to the stable repository once every point-release. But I now discovered it exists the p-u-new ! [1] I thought having -updates/ in my sources.list would prevent me to wait for the point-release to get the updates. I got some and was happy with it, but it seems I understood wrong and didn't got them as early as I could have. This explain my previous statement of not using -proposed-updates/ on production servers. It seems it has not the intended effect. ;) [1] https://www.debian.org/releases/proposed-updates.html
Re: jessie-updates gone
Le mer. 27 mars 2019 à 14:02, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a écrit : > Yes, I talked to them earlier today and they agreed to bringing it back to > avoid > these problems on users that have jessie-updates on their sources.list. That would be wonderful to ease the transition in the LTS phase of Jessie. If done, it might be relevant to rephrase [2] to explain it exists for compatibility reasons but it's left empty. > jessie-proposed-updates could also be brought back, though that's not enabled > by > default upon installation so it should be less problematic if it stays removed > (though some people may have it so it wouldn't hurt to bring it back as well). I personally don't use proposed-updates on the kind of server that stay alive long enough to reach LTS, but why not bring it back too in order to make the transition as smooth as possible. Also, for next time, this could be relevant to add this requirement to keep -updates/ (and maybe -proposed-updates/) to some kind of procedure while transitioning the release in its LTS stage. I found the documentation about contributing to LTS as a developer [1] but not how you handle internally the transition form the standard support team to the LTS support team. But I guess there exists some kind of procedure for it. For the future of transitioning Stretch from standard support to LTS, this could be valuable so the transition could be perfectly smooth ? [1] https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Development [2] https://wiki.debian.org/StableUpdates
Re: jessie-updates gone
Le mar. 26 mars 2019 à 23:33, Markus Koschany a écrit : > You only need the following lines in your sources.list. The -proposed > and -updates repositories are not used in LTS. We publish all our > updates via jessie-security. > I agree that this change should have been better communicated on the > list beforehand. Please be assured that neither jessie-updates nor > jessie-proposed are needed anymore and can be safely removed. Thanks a lot Markus for the clarification. Le mer. 27 mars 2019 à 12:21, Bernie Elbourn a écrit : > I am very grateful for all the work done here. You are all heroes! I clearly second Bernie on this. Huge thanks to all of you.
Re: jessie-updates gone
On 2019-03-27 11:50, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: On 27.03.19 11:20, Bernie Elbourn wrote: If it is possible to wiz up a blank jessie-updates this will save me visiting a bunch of systems throwing apt errors in next few days. I wonder if it wasn't blank already. All of its contents was supposed to be moved to jessie main archive with last point release and no content should be there after that. Packages aren't moved from -updates to (old)stable, they're moved from p-u. Packages only get removed from -updates following manual action from a Release Team member. In the case of jessie, it appears there was still at least an old kernel package in there. Regards, Adam
Re: jessie-updates gone
On 27/03/2019 13:33, Markus Koschany wrote: > Hi, > > adding Jörg to the loop who is our responsible FTP master and the only > one who can make that happen. Actually there are three ftp-masters, not just one :-) > Am 27.03.19 um 12:50 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas: >> On 27.03.19 11:20, Bernie Elbourn wrote: >>> I am very grateful for all the work done here. You are all heroes! >>> >>> Can I gently ask if we can just blank the stretch-updates archive next >>> time >>> round please. Otherwise every stable machine out there now will need a >>> change. >> >> That's what I meant too. I probably should have emphasized that. >> >>> If it is possible to wiz up a blank jessie-updates this will save me >>> visiting a bunch of systems throwing apt errors in next few days. >> >> I wonder if it wasn't blank already. All of its contents was supposed to be >> moved to jessie main archive with last point release and no content should >> be there after that. > > So the idea is to readd the empty jessie-updates directory to avoid apt > errors when updating? Jörg is this possible? Yes, I talked to them earlier today and they agreed to bringing it back to avoid these problems on users that have jessie-updates on their sources.list. jessie-proposed-updates could also be brought back, though that's not enabled by default upon installation so it should be less problematic if it stays removed (though some people may have it so it wouldn't hurt to bring it back as well). Cheers, Emilio
Re: jessie-updates gone
Hi, adding Jörg to the loop who is our responsible FTP master and the only one who can make that happen. Am 27.03.19 um 12:50 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas: > On 27.03.19 11:20, Bernie Elbourn wrote: >> I am very grateful for all the work done here. You are all heroes! >> >> Can I gently ask if we can just blank the stretch-updates archive next >> time >> round please. Otherwise every stable machine out there now will need a >> change. > > That's what I meant too. I probably should have emphasized that. > >> If it is possible to wiz up a blank jessie-updates this will save me >> visiting a bunch of systems throwing apt errors in next few days. > > I wonder if it wasn't blank already. All of its contents was supposed to be > moved to jessie main archive with last point release and no content should > be there after that. So the idea is to readd the empty jessie-updates directory to avoid apt errors when updating? Jörg is this possible? Regards, Markus signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: jessie-updates gone
On 27.03.19 11:20, Bernie Elbourn wrote: I am very grateful for all the work done here. You are all heroes! Can I gently ask if we can just blank the stretch-updates archive next time round please. Otherwise every stable machine out there now will need a change. That's what I meant too. I probably should have emphasized that. If it is possible to wiz up a blank jessie-updates this will save me visiting a bunch of systems throwing apt errors in next few days. I wonder if it wasn't blank already. All of its contents was supposed to be moved to jessie main archive with last point release and no content should be there after that. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have.
Re: jessie-updates gone
I am very grateful for all the work done here. You are all heroes! Can I gently ask if we can just blank the stretch-updates archive next time round please. Otherwise every stable machine out there now will need a change. If it is possible to wiz up a blank jessie-updates this will save me visiting a bunch of systems throwing apt errors in next few days. Huge thanks Bernie
Re: jessie-updates gone
Am 26.03.19 um 15:27 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas: >> On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, Jakob Hirsch wrote: >>> so I noticed this morning that jessie-updates is gone from the mirrors. >>> After some research, I found that this was kind of announced in >>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/03/msg6.html. >>> Question is now, what should I put in my sources.list? I used >>> https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Using#Using_Debian_Long_Term_Support_.28LTS.29 >>> >>> as the authorative source, but this is obviously outdated now. >>> >>> So, am I ok by just using these two? > > On 26.03.19 11:37, Alexander Wirt wrote: >> Its deprecated and unsupported for sime time now, please stop using it. > > It was working since jessie was released, so anyone using jessie will > apparently have it in sources.list. > > I believe one of LTS goals was to continue without need for changing > sources.list. [...] I believe Alexander confused jessie-backports with jessie-updates. I agree that this change should have been better communicated on the list beforehand. Please be assured that neither jessie-updates nor jessie-proposed are needed anymore and can be safely removed. Regards, Markus signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: jessie-updates gone
Hi, Am 26.03.19 um 20:59 schrieb Pierre Fourès: [...] > I've got the same understanding of the situation and suspect I'm > missing nothing as all updates are supposed to be included in the main > repository of revision 8.11. Nonetheless, I would truly appreciate > some clear feedback on it that all is fine without jessie-updates > (and/or get it back). You only need the following lines in your sources.list. The -proposed and -updates repositories are not used in LTS. We publish all our updates via jessie-security. deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ jessie main contrib non-free deb-src http://deb.debian.org/debian/ jessie main contrib non-free deb http://security.debian.org/ jessie/updates main contrib non-free deb-src http://security.debian.org/ jessie/updates main contrib non-free Regards, Markus signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: jessie-updates gone
Le mar. 26 mars 2019 à 15:27, Matus UHLAR - fantomas a écrit : > It was working since jessie was released, so anyone using jessie will > apparently have it in sources.list. > > I believe one of LTS goals was to continue without need for changing > sources.list. As being still active (as part of the LTS effort), I would also have expected jessie to work without fiddling with the sources.list. Even if proposed as an empty repository, this would be nice to have jessie-updates/ on the mirrors. I guess this could save many hours around the globe of sysadmin wondering what have happened to their instances and/or install process and if it's ok or not to have lost jessie-updates. > I also believe that after last point release all stuff was moved to main > archive, so jessie-updates was supposed to be empty. I've got the same understanding of the situation and suspect I'm missing nothing as all updates are supposed to be included in the main repository of revision 8.11. Nonetheless, I would truly appreciate some clear feedback on it that all is fine without jessie-updates (and/or get it back).
Re: jessie-updates gone
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, Jakob Hirsch wrote: so I noticed this morning that jessie-updates is gone from the mirrors. After some research, I found that this was kind of announced in https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/03/msg6.html. Question is now, what should I put in my sources.list? I used https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Using#Using_Debian_Long_Term_Support_.28LTS.29 as the authorative source, but this is obviously outdated now. So, am I ok by just using these two? On 26.03.19 11:37, Alexander Wirt wrote: Its deprecated and unsupported for sime time now, please stop using it. It was working since jessie was released, so anyone using jessie will apparently have it in sources.list. I believe one of LTS goals was to continue without need for changing sources.list. I also believe that after last point release all stuff was moved to main archive, so jessie-updates was supposed to be empty. I did comment it out on all jessie machines: "sed -i -e '/jessie-updates/s/^#*/#/' /etc/apt/sources.list" -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Re: Re: jessie-updates gone
Hi Jakob, I just stumbled on the same issue. I repported it on debian-user@ instead, in the thread [1]. I also found afterward that it was kind of announced on debian-devel-announce@ but I would not have thought to look there neither. But as you said, this is low traffic list, so I suscribed to it. I'm also concerned by the impact of not having jessie-updates/ anymore. Are the updates reintegrated somewhere ? Is it a null-sum reorganisation ? On a separate thread [2], Bernie Elbourn repported a lot of pending upgrade since the removal of jessie-updates/. I thus wonder if it's really works as expected just to remove the jessie-updates/ entry from our /etc/apt/sources.list ? Could somebody confirm or infirm it ? Regards, Pierre. [1] : https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2019/03/msg00765.html [2] : https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2019/03/msg00775.html PS: I hadn't yet suscribed to debian-lts@ list before expecting to answer this thread so I have not mail to reply to. I hope the mailto link will work accordingly. My apologizes in cas it doesn't.
Re: jessie-updates gone
On 2019-03-26 11:37, Alexander Wirt wrote: >> so I noticed this morning that jessie-updates is gone from the mirrors. > Its deprecated and unsupported for sime time now, please stop using it. You mean jessie-updates, right? So I will happily remove it from my sources.list. So using just the remaining two lines is ok then? Thanks for your quick reaction, I see that the wiki is already updated, too. I wonder what's the best way to notice such things earlier... AFAICS, it was not on debian-announce. There was a had a (vague) announcement on debian-devel-announce, but the list has a little too much organizational stuff (for me at least), traffic is low though.
Re: jessie-updates gone
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, Jakob Hirsch wrote: > Hi, > > so I noticed this morning that jessie-updates is gone from the mirrors. > After some research, I found that this was kind of announced in > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/03/msg6.html. > Question is now, what should I put in my sources.list? I used > https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Using#Using_Debian_Long_Term_Support_.28LTS.29 > as the authorative source, but this is obviously outdated now. > > So, am I ok by just using these two? Its deprecated and unsupported for sime time now, please stop using it. Alex
jessie-updates gone
Hi, so I noticed this morning that jessie-updates is gone from the mirrors. After some research, I found that this was kind of announced in https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/03/msg6.html. Question is now, what should I put in my sources.list? I used https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Using#Using_Debian_Long_Term_Support_.28LTS.29 as the authorative source, but this is obviously outdated now. So, am I ok by just using these two? deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ jessie main contrib non-free deb http://security.debian.org/ jessie/updates main contrib non-free TIA Jakob
