Stephen Kitt <sk...@debian.org> (2024-12-07): > On Sat, 07 Dec 2024 22:27:52 +0500, Alex Volkov <a...@bootes.sytes.net> wrote: > > On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 01:18:41 +0100 Santiago Vila <sanv...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > Is this really a work-around? > > > > > > Yes, it is. (try it!) > > > > > > The problem is that the new chrome package is in security but > > > some of its dependencies do not exist at all in security and > > > are only in bookworm-proposed-updates. > > > > > > So you need both security + bookworm-proposed-updates. > > > > No, it's not a "workaround". The problem is that security chromium update > > is built against the new version of libc from "testing". Adding > > "proposed-updates" repo just makes installing the new libc possible. Which > > 1) can be also achieved by just adding "testing" repo and 2) can be not > > desirable for the users of STABLE repository. > > proposed-updates contains the updates which will be added to stable in the > next point release. It’s perfectly reasonable for users of the stable > repository, and *nothing* like adding the testing repository.
bookworm-updates (which is different, recommended, and enabled by default on at least d-i based installations) is getting the packages as well: https://lists.debian.org/debian-stable-announce/2024/12/msg00000.html bookworm-proposed-updates is indeed usually reasonable (and developers should feel free to opt in to help test those updates before they are published via a point release), even if regressions can happen there (just like that can happen anywhere else). Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/> D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
