<feed xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom'>
<title>apt/doc/examples, branch 2.7.2</title>
<subtitle>Debians commandline package manager</subtitle>
<id>https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/atom?h=2.7.2</id>
<link rel='self' href='https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/atom?h=2.7.2'/>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/'/>
<updated>2023-06-27T17:21:47Z</updated>
<entry>
<title>update: Add notice about missing Signed-By in deb822 sources</title>
<updated>2023-06-27T17:21:47Z</updated>
<author>
<name>Julian Andres Klode</name>
<email>julian.klode@canonical.com</email>
</author>
<published>2023-06-27T17:14:43Z</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/commit/?id=aba813975abb880f8b27d659147f7760c02f99e7'/>
<id>urn:sha1:aba813975abb880f8b27d659147f7760c02f99e7</id>
<content type='text'>
We want to gently steer users towards having Signed-By for each
source such that we can retire a shared keyring across sources
which improves resilience against configuration issues and
incompetent malicious actors.
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Seed snapshot servers for well-known hosts</title>
<updated>2023-05-24T09:22:44Z</updated>
<author>
<name>Julian Andres Klode</name>
<email>julian.klode@canonical.com</email>
</author>
<published>2023-05-17T15:18:33Z</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/commit/?id=48cbc5413fb2a0e490c2282b9df65da96ad7a9f2'/>
<id>urn:sha1:48cbc5413fb2a0e490c2282b9df65da96ad7a9f2</id>
<content type='text'>
This will attempt to fallback to a per-server setting if we could
not determine a value from the release file.
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Initial support for snapshot servers, apt --snapshot option</title>
<updated>2023-05-02T13:23:14Z</updated>
<author>
<name>Julian Andres Klode</name>
<email>julian.klode@canonical.com</email>
</author>
<published>2023-02-22T13:14:52Z</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/commit/?id=a19f606aad717fe5c9c69237c3af53feb547115e'/>
<id>urn:sha1:a19f606aad717fe5c9c69237c3af53feb547115e</id>
<content type='text'>
Provide snapshot support for offical Debian and Ubuntu archives.

There are two ways to enable snapshots for sources:

1. Add Snapshot: yes to your sources file ([snapshot=yes]). This
   will allow you to specify a snapshot to use when updating or
   installing using the --snapshot,-S option.

2. Add Snapshot: ID to your sources files to request a specific
   snapshot for this source.

Snapshots are discovered using Label and Origin fields in the Release
file of the main source, hence you need to have updated the source at
least once before you can use snapshots.

The Release file may also declare a snapshots server to use, similar
to Changelogs, it can contain a Snapshots field with the values:

1. `Snapshots: https://example.com/@SNAPSHOTID@` where `@SNAPSHOTID@`
   is a placeholder that is replaced with the requested snapshot id

2. `Snapshots: no` to disable snapshot support for this source.
   Requesting snapshots for this source will result in a failure
   to load the source.

The implementation adds a SHADOWED option to deb source entries,
and marks the main entry as SHADOWED when a snapshot has been
requested, which will cause it to be updated, but not included
in the generated cache.

The concern here was that we need to keep generating the shadowed
entries because the cleanup in `apt update` deletes any files not
queued for download, so we gotta keep downloading the main source.

This design is not entirely optimal, but avoids the pitfalls of
having to reimplement list cleanup.

Gaps:

- Ubuntu Pro repositories and PPAs are not yet supported.
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Add apt install,upgrade,... -U,--update options</title>
<updated>2023-05-02T13:16:54Z</updated>
<author>
<name>Julian Andres Klode</name>
<email>julian.klode@canonical.com</email>
</author>
<published>2023-04-11T14:37:51Z</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/commit/?id=3625351722e67903dc34993fe318e50863bd2d31'/>
<id>urn:sha1:3625351722e67903dc34993fe318e50863bd2d31</id>
<content type='text'>
This runs update before opening the cache and sources.list for
installing/upgrading.
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Suggest using non-free-firmware in update for Debian</title>
<updated>2023-02-04T16:56:41Z</updated>
<author>
<name>David Kalnischkies</name>
<email>david@kalnischkies.de</email>
</author>
<published>2023-01-29T22:24:43Z</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/commit/?id=9712edf6151308148518058bfbd5ccd937509143'/>
<id>urn:sha1:9712edf6151308148518058bfbd5ccd937509143</id>
<content type='text'>
In an ideal world everyone would read release notes, but if the last
sources.list change is any indication a lot of people wont. This is
even more a problem in so far as apt isn't producing errors for
invalid repositories, but instead carries on as normal even through it
will not be able to install upgrades for the moved packages.

This commit implements two scenarios and prints a notice in those cases
pointing to the release notes:
a) User has 'non-free' but not 'non-free-firmware'
b) User has a firmware package which isn't available from anywhere

Both only happen if we are talking about a repository which identifies
itself as one of Debian and is for a release codenamed bookworm (or
sid). Note that as (usually) apt/oldstable is used to upgrade to the
new stable release these suggestions only show for users after they
have upgraded to bookworm on apt command line usage after that.
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Add non-free-firmware component in documentation</title>
<updated>2023-01-29T23:55:30Z</updated>
<author>
<name>David Kalnischkies</name>
<email>david@kalnischkies.de</email>
</author>
<published>2023-01-29T16:30:28Z</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/commit/?id=7e7eb113587230aeb9fe745b2eeac44e634999f5'/>
<id>urn:sha1:7e7eb113587230aeb9fe745b2eeac44e634999f5</id>
<content type='text'>
This changes a lot of lines technically, but its easy enough to unfuzzy
the translations as most of the mentions are examples to be copied
literally in translations (sadly po4a isn't clever enough for this).
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Add flag to disable upgrade by source and test case</title>
<updated>2022-07-24T13:44:13Z</updated>
<author>
<name>Julian Andres Klode</name>
<email>julian.klode@canonical.com</email>
</author>
<published>2022-07-24T13:44:13Z</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/commit/?id=518746f7e03115eb7bdf894d23e74ae115c8717b'/>
<id>urn:sha1:518746f7e03115eb7bdf894d23e74ae115c8717b</id>
<content type='text'>
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>(Temporarily) Rewrite phased updates using a keep-back approach</title>
<updated>2022-06-28T12:25:18Z</updated>
<author>
<name>Julian Andres Klode</name>
<email>julian.klode@canonical.com</email>
</author>
<published>2022-06-24T14:09:24Z</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/commit/?id=db131677bee45c86031d37d7b451e6ece692efb2'/>
<id>urn:sha1:db131677bee45c86031d37d7b451e6ece692efb2</id>
<content type='text'>
This is a lot closer to the original implementation in update-manager,
but still has a couple of differences that might cause bugs:

- When checking whether a version is a security update, we only
  check versions in between and not any later version. This happens
  mostly because we do not know the suite, so we just check if there
  is any version between the installed version and our target that
  is a security update

- We only keep already installed packages, as we run before the
  resolver. update-manager first runs the resolver, and then marks
  for keep all packages that were upgraded or newly installed that
  are phasing (afaict).

This approach has a significant caveat that if you have version 1
installed from a release pocket, version 2 is in security, and version
3 is phasing in updates, that it installs version 3 rather than 2
from security as the policy based implementation does.

It also means that apt install does not respect phasing and would
always install version 3 in such a scenario.

LP: #1979244
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Do not remove Essential/Protected due to dependencies</title>
<updated>2021-11-17T16:32:18Z</updated>
<author>
<name>Julian Andres Klode</name>
<email>julian.klode@canonical.com</email>
</author>
<published>2021-11-17T15:29:09Z</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/commit/?id=891efe3b201a104445ea723a3a5b9b434a78c364'/>
<id>urn:sha1:891efe3b201a104445ea723a3a5b9b434a78c364</id>
<content type='text'>
Suggesting the removal of Essential and Protected packages as a
solution leads to situations where YouTubers end up removing their
desktop.

Let's not remove such packages ourselves.
</content>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Merge branch 'pu/ifrange' into 'main'</title>
<updated>2021-10-18T13:37:47Z</updated>
<author>
<name>Julian Andres Klode</name>
<email>jak@debian.org</email>
</author>
<published>2021-10-18T13:37:47Z</published>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='https://git.kalnischkies.de/apt/commit/?id=efa3528de4277a3d5195c5ce875e7ee960726239'/>
<id>urn:sha1:efa3528de4277a3d5195c5ce875e7ee960726239</id>
<content type='text'>
Add AllowRange option to disable HTTP Range usage

See merge request apt-team/apt!188</content>
</entry>
</feed>
