Re: Feature request: Make deb822 default and deprecate old-style sources.list

that their sources.list is in a spiffy new format so I would expect many people to be uninterested in doing busy work. At least now there's a nag message to "encourage" them to do busy work. :-/

Re: Feature request: Make deb822 default and deprecate old-style sources.list

On 01/05/2025 21:17, Jonathan Dowland wrote: On Thu May 1, 2025 at 7:30 PM BST, Siddh Raman Pant wrote: A big red warning (and not error / failure) will bring a much needed kinetic force for the change IMO, on the same lines as the warning when using the old apt-keys stuff. Hence, I request for

Re: Feature request: Make deb822 default and deprecate old-style sources.list

On Thu May 1, 2025 at 9:17 PM BST, Jonathan Dowland wrote: However, can I point out that the pre-822 format has been around for *27 years*: it's going to take a long time for people who are familiar with it to internalise the new format. Introducing nagging warnings too soon will frustrate peop

Re: Feature request: Make deb822 default and deprecate old-style sources.list

On 2025-05-02, Siddh Raman Pant wrote: > Now that we have deb822 format for specifying APT repo which includes > everything within one file, the user should be discouraged from using > old styles where the GPG key is stored in a "keyring" (whether it be a > trusted keyring or just a folder in anot

Re: Feature request: Make deb822 default and deprecate old-style sources.list

On Thu May 1, 2025 at 7:30 PM BST, Siddh Raman Pant wrote: A big red warning (and not error / failure) will bring a much needed kinetic force for the change IMO, on the same lines as the warning when using the old apt-keys stuff. Hence, I request for making deb822 the default format and deprecat

Re: Feature request: Make deb822 default and deprecate old-style sources.list

Bugs/ Those of us using apt already get a message informing us the there are legacy sources, which in my case is Opera. Even though Opera does have a new-style source declaration, Opera insists on recreating the legacy sources.list with its own entry on each upgrade, which I later delete. I'm

Feature request: Make deb822 default and deprecate old-style sources.list

Hi, Now that we have deb822 format for specifying APT repo which includes everything within one file, the user should be discouraged from using old styles where the GPG key is stored in a "keyring" (whether it be a trusted keyring or just a folder in another place with that name). Far too many pl

Re: testing apt upgrade 2.9.23 to 2.9.26 changes to sources.list

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 14:51:17 + Joe wrote: > > > On 2/6/25 8:20 AM, Charles Curley wrote: > > > > > > And for those who are wondering, this is going on in trixie. [...] > The quick fix in sources.list for debian is to add signed-by into > existing lin

Re: testing apt upgrade 2.9.23 to 2.9.26 changes to sources.list

On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 08:53:49AM -0700, Charles Curley wrote: On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 10:42:27 -0500 Michael Stone wrote: >...except that, per the rest of the discussion in that bug, it almost >certainly won't be able to predict which signer to apply for each >sources.list entr

Re: testing apt upgrade 2.9.23 to 2.9.26 changes to sources.list

Also, there is https://wiki.debian.org/SourcesList . Regards, Jörg.

Re: testing apt upgrade 2.9.23 to 2.9.26 changes to sources.list

Hi, On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 08:27:54AM -0500, Dan Ritter wrote: > Charles Curley wrote: > > Another option would be to retain all comments, and let the user > > manually convert commented out entries. Simple, easy to do, and only a > > little obnoxious for the user. > > > > And for those who are

Re: testing apt upgrade 2.9.23 to 2.9.26 changes to sources.list

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 08:53:49 -0700 Charles Curley wrote: > However, it is not in the man page for apt or apt-get. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1094784 -- Does anybody read signatures any more? https://charlescurley.com https://charlescurley.com/blog/

Re: testing apt upgrade 2.9.23 to 2.9.26 changes to sources.list

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 15:30:02 + Joe wrote: > Why in the world bother making your own scripts when you can just do > > # apt modernize-sources > The following files need modernizing: > - /etc/apt/sources.list.d/google-chrome-beta.list > - /etc/apt/sources.list.d/google-earth-pro.list > -

Re: testing apt upgrade 2.9.23 to 2.9.26 changes to sources.list

ng through this process the comments in >> sources.list were discarded. > > I think this behaviour is unlikely to change unless you report a bug > about it. there are so many bugs filed against apt that something like this has about zero chance of being noticed or changed. also i just trie

Re: testing apt upgrade 2.9.23 to 2.9.26 changes to sources.list

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 10:42:27 -0500 Michael Stone wrote: > >...except that, per the rest of the discussion in that bug, it almost > >certainly won't be able to predict which signer to apply for each > >sources.list entry. That you'll probably have to add on your own.

Re: testing apt upgrade 2.9.23 to 2.9.26 changes to sources.list

hich looks like it might be intended to make this type of conversion. ...except that, per the rest of the discussion in that bug, it almost certainly won't be able to predict which signer to apply for each sources.list entry. That you'll probably have to add on your own. It even tells y

Re: testing apt upgrade 2.9.23 to 2.9.26 changes to sources.list

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 08:09:37 -0700 Charles Curley wrote: > On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 14:51:17 + > Joe wrote: > > > The long-term fix is a file standard.sources root:root 644 in > > /etc/sources.list.d containing: > > Is there anything that tells one how to make this conversion? Better > yet, a s

Re: testing apt upgrade 2.9.23 to 2.9.26 changes to sources.list

o be an 'apt modernize-sources' sub-command, which looks like it might be intended to make this type of conversion. ...except that, per the rest of the discussion in that bug, it almost certainly won't be able to predict which signer to apply for each sources.list entry. That yo

Re: testing apt upgrade 2.9.23 to 2.9.26 changes to sources.list

On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 08:09:37AM -0700, Charles Curley wrote: Is there anything that tells one how to make this conversion? Better yet, a script or two to do it for us? There will be a lot of people scrambling to convert at the last minute. Yes, current version prompts on what to do.

Re: testing apt upgrade 2.9.23 to 2.9.26 changes to sources.list

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 14:51:17 + Joe wrote: > The long-term fix is a file standard.sources root:root 644 in > /etc/sources.list.d containing: Is there anything that tells one how to make this conversion? Better yet, a script or two to do it for us? There will be a lot of people scrambling to co

Re: testing apt upgrade 2.9.23 to 2.9.26 changes to sources.list

rom what I understand you are basically asking > >> for otherwise valid but commented-out sources.list lines to be > >> converted into inactive deb822 files, which seems like a big > >> request. > > > > Another option would be to retain all comments, and le

Re: testing apt upgrade 2.9.23 to 2.9.26 changes to sources.list

hat I understand you are basically asking for otherwise > > > valid but commented-out sources.list lines to be converted into > > > inactive deb822 files, which seems like a big request. > > > > Another option would be to retain all comments, and let the user > >

Re: testing apt upgrade 2.9.23 to 2.9.26 changes to sources.list

On 2/6/25 8:20 AM, Charles Curley wrote: On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 07:53:07 + Andy Smith wrote: Having said that, I am not sure how the complaint could be addressed since from what I understand you are basically asking for otherwise valid but commented-out sources.list lines to be converted

Re: testing apt upgrade 2.9.23 to 2.9.26 changes to sources.list

Charles Curley wrote: > On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 07:53:07 + > Andy Smith wrote: > > > Having said that, I am not sure how the complaint could be addressed > > since from what I understand you are basically asking for otherwise > > valid but commented-out sources.list

Re: testing apt upgrade 2.9.23 to 2.9.26 changes to sources.list

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 07:53:07 + Andy Smith wrote: > Having said that, I am not sure how the complaint could be addressed > since from what I understand you are basically asking for otherwise > valid but commented-out sources.list lines to be converted into > inactive deb822 files,

Re: testing apt upgrade 2.9.23 to 2.9.26 changes to sources.list

Hi, On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 01:51:49AM -0500, songbird wrote: > when doing the upgrade you do have the option of doing > a test run to see what changes are made or not making the > changes at that time. > > when going through this process the comments in > sources.list

testing apt upgrade 2.9.23 to 2.9.26 changes to sources.list

when doing the upgrade you do have the option of doing a test run to see what changes are made or not making the changes at that time. when going through this process the comments in sources.list were discarded. i don't know about other people or what they put in sources.list,

Re: sources.list for Mozilla VPN

Am 09.12.24 um 20:30 schrieb Paul Scott: > I have never been completely clear about the format for sources.list. > > Can someone tell what to add to sources.list to get mozillavpn (sid) Mozilla VPN is based on Mullvad VPN. Mullvad is cheaper and provides Debian packages.

Re: sources.list for Mozilla VPN

Hi, On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 11:26:52PM +0100, Jean-François Bachelet wrote: > Le 10/12/2024 à 19:41, Andy Smith a écrit : > > According to: > > > > > > https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-install-mozilla-vpn-linux-computer > > > > they only support Ubuntu. > no. > > read at the botto

Re: sources.list for Mozilla VPN

Hello :) Le 10/12/2024 à 19:41, Andy Smith a écrit : Hi, On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 12:30:01PM -0700, Paul Scott wrote: Can someone tell what to add to sources.list to get mozillavpn (sid) I think you would be better off asking Mozilla how to install software they make, as this is not

Re: sources.list for Mozilla VPN

On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 21:56:32 +0100, Geert Stappers wrote: > I did see "debports" (not "backports") on > https://packages.debian.org/sid/mozillavpn I also see a link to . If I click that, I am taken to a page that says, among other things, Save 50% on Mozilla VP

Re: sources.list for Mozilla VPN

On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 01:08:09PM -0700, Paul Scott wrote: > On 12/10/24 11:41 AM, Andy Smith wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 12:30:01PM -0700, Paul Scott wrote: > > > Can someone tell what to add to sources.list to get mozillavpn (sid) > > I

Re: sources.list for Mozilla VPN

On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 01:08:09PM -0700, Paul Scott wrote: > https://packages.debian.org/sid/mozillavpn shows the packages listed > as backports Sid doesn't have backports. What I see at that page is that there are *unofficial* builds of mozillavpn, but only on riscv64 and ia64. What architectur

Re: sources.list for Mozilla VPN

On Tue 10 Dec 2024 at 13:08:09 (-0700), Paul Scott wrote: > https://packages.debian.org/sid/mozillavpn shows the packages listed > as backports I saw those, but they appear to be for rather unusual architectures, and I thought you'd have mentioned that. Cheers, David.

Re: sources.list for Mozilla VPN

Andy, Thank you for your reply. https://packages.debian.org/sid/mozillavpn shows the packages listed as backports Paul On 12/10/24 11:41 AM, Andy Smith wrote: Hi, On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 12:30:01PM -0700, Paul Scott wrote: Can someone tell what to add to sources.list to get mozillavpn

Re: sources.list for Mozilla VPN

Hi, On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 12:30:01PM -0700, Paul Scott wrote: > Can someone tell what to add to sources.list to get mozillavpn (sid) I think you would be better off asking Mozilla how to install software they make, as this is not packaged by or provided by Debian. According to: ht

sources.list for Mozilla VPN

I have never been completely clear about the format for sources.list. Can someone tell what to add to sources.list to get mozillavpn (sid) TIA, Paul

Re: /etc/apt/sources.list example [WAS Re: medically smart watches]

On 2/25/24 07:14, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: I have to agree, and pursuing that seems to disclose I do not have the non-frre in my configs. So I'm now asking for help to add it to my /etc/apt/sources *.list stuff. For apt sources.list - have a look at: https://wiki.debian.org/Source

/etc/apt/sources.list example [WAS Re: medically smart watches]

t; > As I see it, is https://wiki.debian.org/BluetoothUser now the best place > > to go. > > > I have to agree, and pursuing that seems to disclose I do not have the > non-frre in my configs. So I'm now asking for help to add it to my > /etc/apt/sources *.list stuf

Re: Apt sources.list

On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 12:18:35PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Anyway, in the time of freeze like now (probably with more > users trying testing), isn't it important that testing gets > security updates? It's not really about what's "important", but what's feasible given the available resource

Re: Apt sources.list

se, even for users using unstable: have "stable-security" in apt sources (e.g. /etc/apt/sources.list). Since stable is new, most packages are based on the same version as stable. That way, users can benefit from security updates for stable. > https://wiki.debian.org/DebianTestin

Re: Apt sources.list

no point in > >>> having 'testing-security' lines in sources.list (I guess it'll give an > >>> error anyway). > >> > >> No error. It exists but as a perpetually empty repository. > > > > This is incorrect. > > > > cventin:~&

Re: Apt sources.list

Op 18-04-2023 om 16:33 schreef Vincent Lefevre: On 2023-04-15 21:59:19 +0200, Frank wrote: Op 15-04-2023 om 18:12 schreef Tixy: Testing doesn't get explicit security support so there's no point in having 'testing-security' lines in sources.list (I guess it'll give an

Re: Apt sources.list

en the next release comes, bookworm will still be > > > bookworm, but "testing" will be bookworm "plus". I'd like to follow > > > testing, regardless of the status of Debian official releases. > > > > > > So... in my sources.list, if I ch

Re: Apt sources.list

On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 12:45 AM wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 09:20:22PM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > [...] > > > Corporations don't need browser cooperation for Data Loss Prevention > > > (DLP) (but they already have it). Corporations just run an > > > interception proxy, like NetSkope.

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 09:20:22PM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: [...] > > Corporations don't need browser cooperation for Data Loss Prevention > > (DLP) (but they already have it). Corporations just run an > > interception proxy, like NetSkope. The NetScope Root CA is loaded into > > every browse

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 4:52 PM Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 3:06 PM Tim Woodall wrote: > > > > On Sat, 15 Apr 2023, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > > > Now, personally I don't feel this is a threat model that I need to > > > worry about. I just use plain old http sources at home

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 3:06 PM Tim Woodall wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Apr 2023, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > Now, personally I don't feel this is a threat model that I need to > > worry about. I just use plain old http sources at home, and if "They" > > learn that I've downloaded rxvt-unicode and mutt,

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023, Greg Wooledge wrote: Now, personally I don't feel this is a threat model that I need to worry about. I just use plain old http sources at home, and if "They" learn that I've downloaded rxvt-unicode and mutt, well, good for Them. The thread model I'm most concerned abou

Re: Apt sources.list

Frank writes: > Are you kidding? No way! Unstable is never pushed into testing just > like that. There are packages that will never move to testing at all! That's correct. Immediately after the release Testing and Stable are identical. Unstable is unchanged. When the freeze is lifted packages th

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sun 16 Apr 2023 at 07:14:31 (+0200), Frank wrote: > Op 15-04-2023 om 22:15 schreef Andrew M.A. Cater: > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 08:14:11PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > > On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 16:45:40 +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > > > > > > > I would suggest that you remain on bookworm until b

Re: Apt sources.list

Op 16-04-2023 om 13:12 schreef Andrew M.A. Cater: Release day when someone pushes the magic switch and the symlinks move :) [snip] "Testing" == "Previous contents of Unstable" (== Trixie / Debian 13) Are you kidding? No way! Unstable is never pushed into testing just like that. There are p

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 20:30:11 -0400 Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 11:09 AM wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:01:27 +0100 > > Alain D D Williams wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 08:52:06AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > While we are talking about this, is there any reason

Re: Apt sources.list

On 15/04/2023 19:54, davidson wrote: On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 12:18:57PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote: It's nice not to be telling everyone who can sniff a plaintext connection which packages you are installing, Without doubt, this is an advantage of a TL

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 12:10:33AM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > On release day, bookworm -> "stable", > > So far so good. > > > "unstable" -> testing == trixie > > Really? I thought there was always a delay for packages to move from > unstable to testing. > Let's try this again because re

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 10:54:10PM +, davidson wrote: [...] > What's wrong, Tomas? Don't you want to watch pornographic videos and > conduct your banking with the same application? I'm glad I don't have to use the browser for any of those. Cheers -- t signature.asc Description: PGP signa

Re: Apt sources.list

Op 15-04-2023 om 22:15 schreef Andrew M.A. Cater: On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 08:14:11PM +0100, Brian wrote: On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 16:45:40 +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: I would suggest that you remain on bookworm until bookworm is released as stable. At that point (and only then) change bookwor

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sun 16 Apr 2023 at 00:10:33 (-0400), Stefan Monnier wrote: > > On release day, bookworm -> "stable", > > So far so good. > > > "unstable" -> testing == trixie > > Really? I thought there was always a delay for packages to move from > unstable to testing. Well, I suppose it gives the naïve u

Re: Apt sources.list

> On release day, bookworm -> "stable", So far so good. > "unstable" -> testing == trixie Really? I thought there was always a delay for packages to move from unstable to testing. Stefan

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 11:09 AM wrote: > On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:01:27 +0100 > Alain D D Williams wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 08:52:06AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > While we are talking about this, is there any reason why all the > > http: should not be https: ? > > > > I have done thi

Re: Apt sources.list

>> Now, personally I don't feel this is a threat model that I need to >> worry about. I just use plain old http sources at home, and if >> "They" learn that I've downloaded rxvt-unicode and mutt, well, good >> for Them. > My understanding is that mandating HTTPS for all connections is supposed >

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 Greg Wooledge wrote: On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 10:54:10PM +, davidson wrote: In case you wish to obscure what software you *install*, but need not conceal the software you *download*: Step one: Make a list of the packages you want, and then augment it with as many plausi

Re: Apt sources.list

On 2023-04-15 at 19:11, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 10:54:10PM +, davidson wrote: > >> In case you wish to obscure what software you *install*, but need >> not conceal the software you *download*: >> >> Step one: Make a list of the packages you want, and then augment >> it

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 10:54:10PM +, davidson wrote: > In case you wish to obscure what software you *install*, but need not > conceal the software you *download*: > > Step one: Make a list of the packages you want, and then augment it > with as many plausible alternatives and red herrings

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 12:18:57PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote: pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: Okay. Let's open this can of worms. I wish more would. The ONLY reason https is used on most sites is because Google *mandated* it years ago. ("Mandate" me

Re: Apt sources.list

Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: ... > On release day, bookworm -> "stable", "unstable" -> testing == trixie > Trixie is copied, essentially as the kickstarter for new "unstable". > "Unstable" == Forky. Unstable == Sid Forky will happen sometime in the future when they start talking about freezing tes

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 08:14:11PM +0100, Brian wrote: > On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 16:45:40 +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > > > I would suggest that you remain on bookworm until bookworm is released as > > stable. At that point (and only then) change bookworm to trixie and carry > > on. As soon as b

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 16:45:40 + "Andrew M.A. Cater" wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 01:23:05PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 08:11:17 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > > > > > Folks: > > > > > > Here is my sourc

Re: Apt sources.list

ll be bookworm "plus". I'd like to follow testing, regardless of the status of Debian official releases. So... in my sources.list, if I change "bookworm" to "testing", will it do that, and (other than the instabilities of testing) is there any liability to it? Test

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 07:21:17PM +0100, Alain D D Williams wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 11:00:52AM -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > > > Okay. Let's open this can of worms. The ONLY reason https is used on > > most sites is because Google *mandated* it years ago. ("Mandate" means > > w

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 11:00:52 -0400 wrote: > Okay. Let's open this can of worms. The ONLY reason https is used on > most sites is because Google *mandated* it years ago. ("Mandate" means > we'll downgrade your search ranking if you don't use https.) There is > otherwise no earthly reason to have a

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 11:00:52AM -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > Okay. Let's open this can of worms. The ONLY reason https is used on > most sites is because Google *mandated* it years ago. ("Mandate" means > we'll downgrade your search ranking if you don't use https.) There is > otherwi

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 12:18:57PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote: > pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > > > > Okay. Let's open this can of worms. The ONLY reason https is used on > > most sites is because Google *mandated* it years ago. ("Mandate" means > > we'll downgrade your search ranking if you don't

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 01:23:05PM +0100, Brian wrote: > On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 08:11:17 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > > > Folks: > > > > Here is my sources.list file: > > > > --- > > > > deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/

Re: Apt sources.list

pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > > Okay. Let's open this can of worms. The ONLY reason https is used on > most sites is because Google *mandated* it years ago. ("Mandate" means > we'll downgrade your search ranking if you don't use https.) There is > otherwise no earthly reason to have an encrypt

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 2023-04-15 at 08:11 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > Folks: > > Here is my sources.list file: > > --- > > deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib non-free > deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contri

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:01:27 +0100 Alain D D Williams wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 08:52:06AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 01:23:05PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > > On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 08:11:17 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com > > > wrote: > > > > --- > > > > > > > > de

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:01:27 +0100 Alain D D Williams wrote: > While we are talking about this, is there any reason why all the > http: should not be https: ? > > I have done this on my own machine without ill effect. One reason is if one is using a local cache which does not inspect https stre

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:23:05 +0100 Brian wrote: > On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 08:11:17 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > > > Folks: > > > > Here is my sources.list file: > > > > --- > > > > deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 02:59:49PM +0100, Alain D D Williams wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 03:48:31PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 02:01:27PM +0100, Alain D D Williams wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > While we are talking about this, is there any reason why all the

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 03:48:31PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 02:01:27PM +0100, Alain D D Williams wrote: > > [...] > > > While we are talking about this, is there any reason why all the http: > > should > > not be https: ? > > It's just unnecessary CPU on the serv

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 02:01:27PM +0100, Alain D D Williams wrote: [...] > While we are talking about this, is there any reason why all the http: should > not be https: ? It's just unnecessary CPU on the server, that's all. Cheers -- t signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 08:52:06AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 01:23:05PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 08:11:17 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > > > --- > > > > > > deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib non-free > > > deb-src

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 01:23:05PM +0100, Brian wrote: > On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 08:11:17 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > > --- > > > > deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib non-free > > deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib non-free > > > >

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 08:11:17 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > Folks: > > Here is my sources.list file: > > --- > > deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib non-free > deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contri

Apt sources.list

Folks: Here is my sources.list file: --- deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib non-free deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib non-free deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security bookworm-security main contrib non-free deb-src http

Re: what do I need to add to my sources.list for the new non-free-firmware repository?

On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 04:03:51 -0800 "Rick Thomas" wrote: Hello Rick, >So what do I need to add to my sources.list file to get them back now? There was an announcement a few days ago, saying what to do. Typically, I cannot find it ATM. However, you simply need to add; non-fre

Re: what do I need to add to my sources.list for the new non-free-firmware repository?

gt; on these machines and found that a number of firmware packages are considered > "obsolete", presumably because they are no longer in any of the repositories > listed > in sources.list. > > So what do I need to add to my sources.list file to get them back now? Hi,

what do I need to add to my sources.list for the new non-free-firmware repository?

sidered "obsolete", presumably because they are no longer in any of the repositories listed in sources.list. So what do I need to add to my sources.list file to get them back now? Here's what I see: root@kmac:~# aptitude search '~o' i A firmware-amd-gr

Re: About /etc/apt/sources.list | Warehouse for users of the stable version

f > only bullseye and bullsey-updates were added to /etc/apt/sources.list and he > added all four bullseys to /etc/apt/sources.list at the same time? > > Please give me some of your professional advice. Hi.. This is my second attempt to help answer, LOL. After looking at your link th

Re: About /etc/apt/sources.list | Warehouse for users of the stable version

tps://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libisofs as "browse source code" to the right under the title "links".) > Would it make any difference if > only bullseye and bullsey-updates were added to /etc/apt/sources.list and he > added all four bullseys to /etc/apt/sources.list at t

About /etc/apt/sources.list | Warehouse for users of the stable version

/sources.list and he added all four bullseys to /etc/apt/sources.list at the same time? Please give me some of your professional advice. Thank! Best Regards, - Yunsheng Xie Email: c0ldz...@outlook.com

Re: xterm. Valid /etc/apt/sources.list [Was 26th pass]

now we have a claim that in addition to all your *other* problems, > you have broken Debian sources on at least one of your systems. No > actual *proof*, mind you. Just a claim. > > Or... is it even Debian? Hell. It's probably not. It's probably > your heavily customize

Re: sources.list 's security line

On 08.09.21 21:12, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 08:28:18PM +0200, Ulf Volmer wrote: >> On 08.09.21 16:50, Lee wrote: >> >>> Are you using a dnssec validating resolver? >>> >>> It'd be nice of somebody that understands dnssec would double-check, >>> but it looks like name lookups f

Re: sources.list 's security line

On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 08:28:18PM +0200, Ulf Volmer wrote: > On 08.09.21 16:50, Lee wrote: > > > Are you using a dnssec validating resolver? > > > > It'd be nice of somebody that understands dnssec would double-check, > > but it looks like name lookups for security.debian.org has dnssec > > enab

Re: sources.list 's security line

On 08.09.21 16:50, Lee wrote: > Are you using a dnssec validating resolver? > > It'd be nice of somebody that understands dnssec would double-check, > but it looks like name lookups for security.debian.org has dnssec > enabled and not enabled for deb.debian.org deb.debian.org is a CNAME and this

Re: sources.list 's security line

On 9/6/21, Jim Popovitch wrote: [.. snip lots ..] > security.d.o and deb.d.o are both hosted on fastly servers, albeit > different sets of servers. What is interesting to me is that the DNS for > security.d.o is operated by Debian whereas the DNS for deb.d.o is run by > fastly. I'm not sure tha

Re: sources.list 's security line

> > wiki, FAQs, Release Notes, etc.) I think I'm finding myself with > > > kinda four options for the security line in /etc/apt/sources.list > > > Those being: > > > > > > deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security bullseye-security main >

Re: sources.list 's security line

nda four options for the security line in /etc/apt/sources.list > > Those being: > > > > deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security bullseye-security main > > > > deb http://security.debian.org bullseye-security main > > > > deb https://deb.debian.or

Re: sources.list 's security line

On 2021-09-06 05:53 AM, riveravaldez wrote: Hi, after reading the various sources of documentation (handbook, wiki, FAQs, Release Notes, etc.) I think I'm finding myself with kinda four options for the security line in /etc/apt/sources.list Those being: deb http://security.debian.org/d

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >