Hallo Lars! de...@sumpfralle.de <de...@sumpfralle.de> (2020-03-20): > thank you for your report! […] > Thank you for your analysis and recommendations.
You're very welcome! > I verified, that the packages available via "buster/updates" are > assigned to the "buster" distribution. Thus the issue can be solved by > removing "/updates" from distribution names. Beware, starting with bullseye (Debian 11, currently in “testing” mode), the security suite will be named <suite>-updates rather than <suite>/updates. This can be seen here already: http://security.debian.org/debian-security/dists/ Anyway, I didn't check the actual apt-related changes in this particular commit… > I just pushed the corrsponding changes upstream. > > Attached you find the three relevant upstream commits (including the > fix for the "last" condition above). I would be happy, if you could > test the attached patches and report back, whether these work for you. … instead, I've deployed the most recent version of the plugin, taken from the stable-2.0 branch (2.0.59 tag). The idea is to give it a bit of “black box testing”, as if I didn't know what's supposed to happen there. :) I'll see what happens in the upcoming days/weeks; I already anticipate that I'll have to tweak the limits for some suites: “apt-get dist-upgrade” would only upgrade packages from the “<suite>-backports” suite *if they are currently installed from there*, while it seems the new apt_all plugin reports all packages that could be upgraded there, even if the current version is that of the base <suite>… I can expand with some example if you'd like. FWIW: That's the usual behaviour for suites configured with: NotAutomatic: yes ButAutomaticUpgrades: yes which is the case for *-backports suites (experimental is a little different). Tschüß! -- Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/> D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
