1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.USER

  • Modernizing apt sources files

    From Charles Curley@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 6 17:50:01 2025
    With the previous discussion on modernizing one's apt sources files, I
    went ahead and did it on two of my trixie installations.

    The two original sources files were preserved, which might be useful
    for some oddball installations.

    Note that sources.list, which resides in /etc/apt, is replaced by debian.sources, in /etc/apt/sources.list.d.

    My sources.list was translated cleanly on both machines.

    vivaldi.list, on one of them, had a glitch, as apt could not determine
    which key to use for its Signed-By value. There were three
    possibilities among trusted.gpg.d/vivaldi-*. I tried the newest one,
    and that failed an "apt update". So I substituted the next newest. That
    one worked, and a subsequent "apt upgrade" worked.

    I suspect we'll be living with mixed .list and .sources files as
    suppliers upgrade what they ship.

    --
    Does anybody read signatures any more?

    https://charlescurley.com
    https://charlescurley.com/blog/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Michael Stone@21:1/5 to Greg on Sat Feb 8 15:50:01 2025
    On Sat, Feb 08, 2025 at 02:25:51PM -0000, Greg wrote:
    On 2025-02-06, Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> wrote:

    I suspect we'll be living with mixed .list and .sources files as
    suppliers upgrade what they ship.

    I haven't been following the long thread about the modernization of apt >sources.

    I'm running Bookworm. Is it recommended to modernize, or is the modern
    method intended for some future date? As everything works nicely on this
    new install of mine, I'm hesistant to be modern for modern's sake.

    Don't worry about it, and don't do anything now.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Charles Curley@21:1/5 to Greg on Sat Feb 8 15:50:01 2025
    On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 14:25:51 -0000 (UTC)
    Greg <curtyshoo@gmail.com> wrote:

    On 2025-02-06, Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> wrote:

    I suspect we'll be living with mixed .list and .sources files as
    suppliers upgrade what they ship.

    I haven't been following the long thread about the modernization of
    apt sources.

    I'm running Bookworm. Is it recommended to modernize, or is the modern
    method intended for some future date? As everything works nicely on
    this new install of mine, I'm hesistant to be modern for modern's
    sake.




    This change has just started in trixie, so I expect that you won't see
    any issue until you move to trixie.

    The command for doing so, "apt modernize-sources", does not work on
    bookworm, but does on trixie.

    --
    Does anybody read signatures any more?

    https://charlescurley.com
    https://charlescurley.com/blog/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Greg Wooledge@21:1/5 to Greg on Sat Feb 8 16:00:02 2025
    On Sat, Feb 08, 2025 at 14:25:51 -0000, Greg wrote:
    I haven't been following the long thread about the modernization of apt sources.

    I'm running Bookworm. Is it recommended to modernize, or is the modern
    method intended for some future date? As everything works nicely on this
    new install of mine, I'm hesistant to be modern for modern's sake.

    Apparently the synaptic program isn't fully aware of the modernized
    sources format, and will only partially work with them. So, if you're
    a synaptic user, that would be a reason *not* to modernize.

    If you don't use synaptic, then to the best of my knowledge there's no compelling argument for either side, so it's up to you. If you want
    to get ahead of the changes, you can go for it. If you prefer
    stability above all, then you can hold off, and wait for Trixie.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe@21:1/5 to Greg Wooledge on Sat Feb 8 16:30:02 2025
    On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 09:38:42 -0500
    Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> wrote:

    On Sat, Feb 08, 2025 at 14:25:51 -0000, Greg wrote:
    I haven't been following the long thread about the modernization of
    apt sources.

    I'm running Bookworm. Is it recommended to modernize, or is the
    modern method intended for some future date? As everything works
    nicely on this new install of mine, I'm hesistant to be modern for
    modern's sake.

    Apparently the synaptic program isn't fully aware of the modernized
    sources format, and will only partially work with them. So, if you're
    a synaptic user, that would be a reason *not* to modernize.

    If you don't use synaptic, then to the best of my knowledge there's no compelling argument for either side, so it's up to you. If you want
    to get ahead of the changes, you can go for it. If you prefer
    stability above all, then you can hold off, and wait for Trixie.


    I don't think there's a problem. I have occasionally used Synaptic over
    many years, and never set repositories with it. I've always edited sources.list, and it's not often I've needed to do that.

    Synaptic actually uses apt tools to install and update, and they will
    use either sources.list or the sources.list.d files, whichever is
    there. It's only if you need, for some reason, to manipulate
    repositories that there will be an issue, and that will probably be
    fixed fairly soon.

    In any case, I think the need to add explicit signing keys is more
    urgent, either in sources.list or sources.list.d files. Generally when
    apt starts warning about something, it's time to fix it. It's only
    warning about signing at the moment, and just recommending modernising
    the repository list.

    --
    Joe


    --
    Joe

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)