| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... else the first block added by apt::preferences_snippet is in the same
paragraph as the last block provided by the template.
|
|
The APT pinning we ship does not support that, and this seems a bit too much of
a corner case to me to deserve being supported out-of-the-box.
Anyone willing to use current release + next release + next release backports
(e.g. Lenny + Squeeze + squeeze-backports) can anyway do so using
apt::sources_list and apt::preferences_snippet.
https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/2856 is the bug that triggered this change.
|
|
This is now done automatically by APT.
|
|
The previous template was indeed ensuring no package from squeeze-updates could
be easily or automatically installed.
|
|
Every needed function has been updated since Squeeze was released and we can
thus use a nice generic template.
|
|
CODENAME-updates.
Take this into account in the Debian sources.list template:
- go on using volatile.d.o for <= Lenny sources lines
- start using CODENAME-updates for Squeeze and newer.
Reference: http://lists.debian.org/debian-volatile/2011/01/msg00008.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
namespace like that
|
|
Lenny's APT does not support pinning like this:
Pin: release o=Debian,n=<%= codename %>
We therefore switched (in commit ef2ebdffd) to:
Pin: release o=Debian,a=<%= release %>
With such a pinning setup, when Squeeze is released, systems using this module
with $apt_use_next_release set to true would immediately switch to prefer
packages from Squeeze. If an automated upgrade process is setup, they would be
automatically upgraded to Squeeze.
This does not sound safe to me, so let's use the release version number as an
additional selection criterion to prevent upgrades to Squeeze to happen behind
our back:
Pin: release o=Debian,a=<%= release %>,v=<%= release_version %>*
Note that the trailing '*' is intentional and necessary to match stable
point-releases.
|
|
|
|
upgrade_package functionality, because you get an email when the package has been upgraded.
|
|
Why apticron, when we have cron-apt already? Some people have different preferences, we use apticron along with the upgrade_package functionality in this module. I know someone who uses cron-apt to run the upgrades, but apticron for notifications, because apticron's notifications are much nicer (cron-apt just gives you the output of apt-get upgrade)
|
|
the templates/Debian/preferences_lenny.erb file checked in with
e2f80db7b76171e5945127e2fd42fb35043990fb contains pinning based on codename,
which is not supported in lenny (see #433624 - if you look at the version graph,
you see, "Fixed in version 0.7.21", and lenny has 0.7.20.2+lenny1.)
|
|
Conflicts:
README
files/preferences
templates/Debian/sources.list.deb-src.erb
templates/Debian/sources.list.volatile.erb
templates/Ubuntu/sources.list.backports.erb
templates/Ubuntu/sources.list.deb-src.erb
|
|
Merging one more commit.
Conflicts:
files/preferences
templates/Debian/sources.list.deb-src.erb
templates/Debian/sources.list.volatile.erb
templates/Ubuntu/sources.list.backports.erb
templates/Ubuntu/sources.list.deb-src.erb
|
|
File headers are there to indicate that the files should not be touched
directly on the server. By changing the first sentence to "This file is
managed by Puppet", we reinforce the idea that it is already taken care
of by something else.
Signed-off-by: Gabriel Filion <lelutin@gmail.com>
|
|
Currently, it's either we use the default source that's hardcoded in the
sources.list template or we redefine entirely this template.
Make it easier to just change the URL of the apt source while using the
rest of the default template by adding a $main_apt_source variable.
Signed-off-by: Gabriel Filion <lelutin@gmail.com>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Gabriel Filion <lelutin@gmail.com>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
