Re: [SOLVED] Re: old entries in sources.list?

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 6:29 PM Andy Smith wrote: > > [...] > > There have even been some arguments that the relatively recent trend of > providing .d directories and support for config fragment inclusion has > been added predominantly by software coming from distribution ecosystems > that lack d

Re: [SOLVED] Re: old entries in sources.list

On Fri 20 Jun 2025 at 12:12:09 (-0400), Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:53 AM Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:40:59 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:30 AM wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:06:51AM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wro

Re: [SOLVED] Re: old entries in sources.list?

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 12:59 PM songbird wrote: > > Jeffrey Walton wrote: > ... > > Unfortunately, I cannot find a Debian specific article on > > configuration directories. However, Red Hat has "Linux configuration: > > Understanding *.d directories in /etc," > >

Re: [SOLVED] Re: old entries in sources.list?

Hi, On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 01:23:13PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > In the specific case of /etc/ssh/sshd_config.d/, the man page is > pretty explicit: > > Note that the Debian openssh-server package sets several options as stan‐ > dard in /etc/ssh/sshd_config which are not the default

Re: [SOLVED] Re: old entries in sources.list?

On Fri, 20 Jun 2025, The Wanderer wrote: Personally, what I do in response to such a prompt is to have it show me a diff of the two files, and then if the changes involve losing any settings want to retain, I have it give me a shell prompt (or use another shell I have independently) to make a co

Re: [SOLVED] Re: old entries in sources.list?

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:30 AM wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:06:51AM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 10:37 AM Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 10:15:47 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > > > SSH config files are located in /etc, too. But ad

Re: [SOLVED] Re: old entries in sources.list

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 08:58:58AM -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Fri 20 Jun 2025 at 08:28:11 (+0200), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 05:40:24PM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > It might be worth mentioning that if the package owns sources.list, > > > the

Re: [SOLVED] Re: old entries in sources.list?

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 18:20:37 +0100, Tim Woodall wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jun 2025, The Wanderer wrote: > > > Personally, what I do in response to such a prompt is to have it show me > > a diff of the two files, and then if the changes involve losing any > > settings want to retain, I have it give m

Re: [SOLVED] Re: old entries in sources.list?

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 12:12:09 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > Unfortunately, I cannot find a Debian specific article on > configuration directories. However, Red Hat has "Linux configuration: > Understanding *.d directories in /etc," >

Re: [SOLVED] Re: old entries in sources.list?

Jeffrey Walton wrote: ... > Unfortunately, I cannot find a Debian specific article on > configuration directories. However, Red Hat has "Linux configuration: > Understanding *.d directories in /etc," >. Now > that we have configuration d

Re: [SOLVED] Re: old entries in sources.list?

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:42:53AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2025-06-20 at 11:30, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:06:51AM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > >> You will absolutely lose your sshd_config when the package is > >> upgraded and you choose the maintainers v

Re: [SOLVED] Re: old entries in sources.list?

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:53 AM Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:40:59 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:30 AM wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:06:51AM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 10:37 AM Greg Wooledge

Re: [SOLVED] Re: old entries in sources.list?

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:40:59 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:30 AM wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:06:51AM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 10:37 AM Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 10:15:47 -0400, Jeffr

Re: [SOLVED] Re: old entries in sources.list?

On 2025-06-20 at 11:30, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:06:51AM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: >> You will absolutely lose your sshd_config when the package is >> upgraded and you choose the maintainers version of the file. > > No. > > You will be asked, as for every conffile

Re: [SOLVED] Re: old entries in sources.list?

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:06:51AM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 10:37 AM Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 10:15:47 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > > SSH config files are located in /etc, too. But admins are expected to > > > make changes to /etc/ssh/s

Re: [SOLVED] Re: old entries in sources.list?

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 10:37 AM Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 10:15:47 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > SSH config files are located in /etc, too. But admins are expected to > > make changes to /etc/ssh/sshd_config.d/, and not /etc/ssh/sshd_config. > > That's definitely false.

Re: [SOLVED] Re: old entries in sources.list?

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 10:15:47 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > SSH config files are located in /etc, too. But admins are expected to > make changes to /etc/ssh/sshd_config.d/, and not /etc/ssh/sshd_config. That's definitely false.

Re: [SOLVED] Re: old entries in sources.list?

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 2:28 AM wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 05:40:24PM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > [...] > > > It might be worth mentioning that if the package owns sources.list, > > then you should not edit it. You should allow the package maintainer > > to edit or replace sources.lis

Re: [SOLVED] Re: old entries in sources.list

On Fri 20 Jun 2025 at 08:28:11 (+0200), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 05:40:24PM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > [...] > > > It might be worth mentioning that if the package owns sources.list, > > then you should not edit it. You should allow the package maintainer > > to edi

Re: [SOLVED] Re: old entries in sources.list?

On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 05:40:24PM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: [...] > It might be worth mentioning that if the package owns sources.list, > then you should not edit it. You should allow the package maintainer > to edit or replace sources.list. Place your changes in > /etc/apt/sources.list.d/.

Re: [SOLVED] Re: old entries in sources.list

On Thu 19 Jun 2025 at 17:40:24 (-0400), Jeffrey Walton wrote: > It might be worth mentioning that if the package owns sources.list, > then you should not edit it. You should allow the package maintainer > to edit or replace sources.list. Place your changes in > /etc/apt/sources.list.d/. > > But ag

Re: [SOLVED] Re: old entries in sources.list?

On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 2:59 PM Hans wrote: > > > If the packaging system wants to remove a package that came from > > oldstable for dependency reasons, having oldstable sources listed > > won't change that. > > > > Some old packages (usually versioned libraries) are kept around forever > > and do

Re: [SOLVED] Re: old entries in sources.list?

Andrew M.A. Cater writes: > Use apt / apt-get options for safe upgrade - to upgrade the minimum > set of packages. Log the output of the safe-upgrade command (normally just "apt upgrade") and read the log before giving the next command. > Do an apt-get dist-upgrade / apt full-upgrade And again,

Re: [SOLVED] Re: old entries in sources.list?

On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 05:27:55PM +0200, Hans wrote: > > Thank you very much for your very usefull informations. It answers all my > questions and worries I had. > > So, "best" way is to remove the old entries and use only trixie-related ones. > Best way: Bring the system up to date on the o

[SOLVED] Re: old entries in sources.list?

> If the packaging system wants to remove a package that came from > oldstable for dependency reasons, having oldstable sources listed > won't change that. > > Some old packages (usually versioned libraries) are kept around forever > and don't cause any problems. They just sit on your hard drive