summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* Release 2.7.102.7.10Julian Andres Klode2024-01-192-3/+3
|
* Release 2.7.92.7.9Julian Andres Klode2024-01-112-3/+3
|
* Release 2.7.82.7.8Julian Andres Klode2024-01-083-4/+4
|
* Revert "Merge branch 'distclean-doc-an-test' into 'main'"Julian Andres Klode2024-01-081-7/+1
| | | | | This reverts commit 86e6eace1d50527b5a2396290acd1db819b13e26, reversing changes made to 6e43eef9ca8250eb561f2c9af2f4890d674f3911.
* Test and document 'dist-clean'Gábor Németh2023-12-151-1/+7
|
* Have Grp.FindPreferredPkg return very foreign pkgs as last resortDavid Kalnischkies2023-12-041-1/+1
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Usually this method will return the package in the most preferred architecture (e.g. native) as that is usually what the user talks about and also information wise for our internal usage the most dense. Early on in parsing Packages files through it can happen that we encounter stanzas about packages in architectures we are not even configured to know about – we have to collect them anyhow as we might be requested to show info about them or they could be in the status file and we can't ignore stanzas in the status file… trouble is that this method used to not return anything if only such an architecture was present if we later discover other architectures which causes Provides and Conflicts which are added lazily on discovery of an architecture to not be added correctly. The result is like in the testcase that apt could be instructed to install a package without respecting its negative dependencies, which is bad even if its discovered by dpkg and refused. It does only happen with unknown architectures through which mostly happens if you are unlucky (amd64 users tend to be very lucky as that sorts early) and use flat-style repositories containing multiple architectures. Reported-By: Tianyu Chen (billchenchina) on IRC
* Release 2.7.7Julian Andres Klode2023-11-222-3/+3
|
* Merge branch 'Peutch-guest-main-patch-29453' into 'main'Julian Andres Klode2023-11-201-1/+1
|\ | | | | | | | | Update fr.po (add a missing dot) See merge request apt-team/apt!306
| * Update fr.po (add a missing dot)Patrice Duroux2023-08-051-1/+1
| |
* | s/AlreadDownloaded/AlreadyDownloaded/ in doc/progress-reporting.mdJulian Andres Klode2023-10-111-1/+1
| | | | | | | | Thanks: jwilk for suggestion
* | Release 2.7.62.7.6Julian Andres Klode2023-09-203-4/+4
| | | | | | | | Translation template reordering carnage :D
* | Portuguese manpages translation updateAmérico Monteiro2023-09-171-88/+77
| | | | | | | | Closes: #1051731
* | Release 2.7.52.7.5Julian Andres Klode2023-09-161-1/+1
| |
* | doc/po/nl.po: Fix spurious translation of docbook tagJulian Andres Klode2023-09-161-1/+1
| |
* | Release 2.7.42.7.4Julian Andres Klode2023-09-163-4/+4
| |
* | Dutch documentation translation updateFrans Spiesschaert2023-09-161-66/+54
|/ | | | Closes: #1051723
* Release 2.7.32.7.3Julian Andres Klode2023-08-025-6/+6
|
* Add apt-patterns(7) to apt{,-cache,-get} SEE ALSO sectionsDavid Kalnischkies2023-07-2614-185/+228
| | | | | | | While we are at it fix the mislabeling as (5) in some places and unfuzzy the translations. Reported-By: Enrico Zini on IRC
* Dutch manpages translation updateFrans Spiesschaert2023-07-261-30/+18
| | | | Closes: #1033904
* Add "apt-patterns" reference to "apt list" description in apt(8)Tianon Gravi2023-07-251-4/+4
|
* Release 2.7.22.7.2Julian Andres Klode2023-07-1210-19/+19
|
* Merge branch 'pu/missing-signed-by' into 'main'Julian Andres Klode2023-07-111-0/+1
|\ | | | | | | | | update: Add notice about missing Signed-By in deb822 sources See merge request apt-team/apt!298
| * update: Add notice about missing Signed-By in deb822 sourcesJulian Andres Klode2023-06-271-0/+1
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
* | doc: Bump distro versions for apt-key removalJulian Andres Klode2023-06-283-5/+5
|/
* Release 2.7.12.7.1Julian Andres Klode2023-05-242-3/+3
|
* Seed snapshot servers for well-known hostsJulian Andres Klode2023-05-241-0/+1
| | | | | This will attempt to fallback to a per-server setting if we could not determine a value from the release file.
* Release 2.7.02.7.0Julian Andres Klode2023-05-0212-13/+1202
|
* Initial support for snapshot servers, apt --snapshot optionJulian Andres Klode2023-05-024-0/+62
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
* Add apt install,upgrade,... -U,--update optionsJulian Andres Klode2023-05-022-1/+15
| | | | | This runs update before opening the cache and sources.list for installing/upgrading.
* Release 2.6.0, the "unhappy bookworm" release2.6.0Julian Andres Klode2023-03-065-6/+6
|
* Update ubuntu-codename to lunarJulian Andres Klode2023-02-271-1/+1
|
* Merge branch 'feature/non-free-firmware' into 'main'Julian Andres Klode2023-02-2716-449/+381
|\ | | | | | | | | Support transition to new non-free-firmware component See merge request apt-team/apt!282
| * Suggest using non-free-firmware in update for DebianDavid Kalnischkies2023-02-041-1/+5
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
| * Bump codenames in docs in preparation for Debian 12David Kalnischkies2023-01-301-7/+7
| |
| * Add non-free-firmware component in documentationDavid Kalnischkies2023-01-3014-441/+369
| | | | | | | | | | | | 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).
* | Release 2.5.62.5.6Julian Andres Klode2023-02-0812-68/+110
|/
* Document --allow-insecure-repositoriesMichaIng2023-01-251-5/+5
| | | | | since --no-allow-insecure-repositories is the default. Signed-off-by: MichaIng <micha@dietpi.com>
* Release 2.5.52.5.5Julian Andres Klode2023-01-1712-117/+187
|
* apt-patterns(7): Grouping with () and or using | are supportedJulian Andres Klode2023-01-131-4/+0
| | | | They have been since 1.9.9, lol
* make ?installed pattern match installed version only when narrowedJulian Andres Klode2023-01-131-1/+4
| | | | | | | | This is the correct behavior, but it was overlooked when aptitude patterns where ported. I remember wondering about this, but I checked the aptitude code and saw a check that CurrentVer != 0 or something and then apparently did not notice another implementation for version matching.
* Merge branch 'fix/doc-ftparchive-path-repeats' into 'main'Julian Andres Klode2023-01-051-1/+1
|\ | | | | | | | | Do not document path to be repeatable in apt-ftparchive cmds See merge request apt-team/apt!267
| * Do not document path to be repeatable in apt-ftparchive cmdsDavid Kalnischkies2022-11-021-1/+1
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | The manpage for apt-ftparchive {packages,sources} claims that the path argument can be repeated, but that logically conflicts with having two optional arguments after that and isn't implemented in code either, so we just adapt the documentation to reality here. So, since when is this documentation wrong? The manpage is currently written in xml (since 2004), but the sgml before that had the same mistake included all the way back to a time in which time itself is not stable (the commit is dated in git 2004, but the commit message says 2001 while including a d/changelog stanza dated 2000) in my favorite commit "Join with aliencode" which brought in a whole lot of stuff adding also (quoting said d/changelog entry) "apt-ftparchive the all dancing all singing FTP archive maintenance program". In other words: It was documented this way for more than 22 years. Reported-By: Michael Tokarev on IRC
* | Dutch manpages translation updateFrans Spiesschaert2022-12-281-8/+8
|/ | | | Closes: #1023456, #1025843
* Release 2.5.42.5.4Julian Andres Klode2022-10-3112-13/+93
|
* Documentation for autopurge commandquazgar2022-10-281-0/+6
|
* Release 2.5.32.5.3Julian Andres Klode2022-09-2813-24/+56
|
* doc: Explain that apt-get download ensures package authenticityPovilas Kanapickas2022-08-061-1/+2
| | | | | | | | | | | The documentation currently does not specify whether `apt-get download` verifies the authenticity of downloaded packages or not. The underlying code does verify the authenticity of packages as usual and would fail if the package signature is invalid. Therefore it makes sense to make this guarantee explicit in the documentation, because without it security-conscious users will likely want to recheck the signatures or checksums manually which is not necessary in this case and just wastes time.
* Release 2.5.22.5.2Julian Andres Klode2022-07-243-4/+4
|
* Add flag to disable upgrade by source and test caseJulian Andres Klode2022-07-241-0/+1
|
* Release 2.5.12.5.1Julian Andres Klode2022-06-302-3/+3
|
generated by cgit v1.2.3-70-g09d2 (git 2.46.0) at 2026-05-12 17:00:49 +0000