buster backports question/status

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

buster backports question/status

Olivier Sallou-3
Hi,
it may be a silly question, but doing some tests on a Debian buster, I got errors trying to install a package from buster-backports.

I added to sources.list.d info to set buster-backports but i get this error:

E: The value 'buster-backports' is invalid for APT::Default-Release as such a release is not available in the sources

Looking at https://backports.debian.org, I only see stretch info/links.

As buster is really new, I expect there is no package yet in buster-backports, but I should not get errors trying to access it. And I am surprise to not find any reference to it.

So, am I doing something wrong?

Thanks

Olivier


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: buster backports question/status

Andrey Rahmatullin-3
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:54:21AM +0200, olivier sallou wrote:
> So, am I doing something wrong?
You tried to install a package (what package? they don't exist) from a
repo that doesn't exist.

--
WBR, wRAR

signature.asc (911 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: buster backports question/status

olivier sallou-2


Le mer. 10 juil. 2019 à 11:08, Andrey Rahmatullin <[hidden email]> a écrit :
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:54:21AM +0200, olivier sallou wrote:
> So, am I doing something wrong?
You tried to install a package (what package? they don't exist) from a
repo that doesn't exist.
 
I tried a package that is not in backports, it was just for test (for an automation tool I use)
It should fail with a *package not found* , but should not fail about buster-backports being non available.

Is the problem linked to buster-backports not existing yet ? Is backports repo not created automatically on new releases?


--
WBR, wRAR


--
gpg key id: 4096R/326D8438  (keyring.debian.org)
Key fingerprint = 5FB4 6F83 D3B9 5204 6335  D26D 78DC 68DB 326D 8438
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: buster backports question/status

Kyle Robbertze-3

On 2019/07/10 11:29, olivier sallou wrote:

>
>
> Le mer. 10 juil. 2019 à 11:08, Andrey Rahmatullin <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> a écrit :
>
>     On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:54:21AM +0200, olivier sallou wrote:
>     > So, am I doing something wrong?
>     You tried to install a package (what package? they don't exist) from a
>     repo that doesn't exist.
>
>  
> I tried a package that is not in backports, it was just for test (for an
> automation tool I use)
> It should fail with a *package not found* , but should not fail about
> buster-backports being non available.

buster-backports is not yet available.
>
> Is the problem linked to buster-backports not existing yet ? Is
> backports repo not created automatically on new releases?

It is created a little while after the release, not automatically

--

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Kyle Robbertze
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Debian Developer
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ https://wiki.debian.org/KyleRobbertze

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: buster backports question/status

Andrey Rahmatullin-3
In reply to this post by olivier sallou-2
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 11:29:01AM +0200, olivier sallou wrote:
> I tried a package that is not in backports, it was just for test (for an
> automation tool I use)
> It should fail with a *package not found* , but should not fail about
> buster-backports being non available.
I don't think the failing command was apt install, but rather apt update?

--
WBR, wRAR

signature.asc (911 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: buster backports question/status

olivier sallou-2


Le mer. 10 juil. 2019 à 11:35, Andrey Rahmatullin <[hidden email]> a écrit :
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 11:29:01AM +0200, olivier sallou wrote:
> I tried a package that is not in backports, it was just for test (for an
> automation tool I use)
> It should fail with a *package not found* , but should not fail about
> buster-backports being non available.
I don't think the failing command was apt install, but rather apt update?

Nope, only at install time, update succeeded.
I though that backport was immediately available with new releases, even if empty. I understand that is not the case. 
I will update my scripts to manage the backports *not available* case.

Anyway, thanks for your anssers. 

--
WBR, wRAR


--
gpg key id: 4096R/326D8438  (keyring.debian.org)
Key fingerprint = 5FB4 6F83 D3B9 5204 6335  D26D 78DC 68DB 326D 8438
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: buster backports question/status

Julien Cristau-6
In reply to this post by olivier sallou-2
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 11:29:01 +0200, olivier sallou wrote:

> Le mer. 10 juil. 2019 à 11:08, Andrey Rahmatullin <[hidden email]> a
> écrit :
>
> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:54:21AM +0200, olivier sallou wrote:
> > > So, am I doing something wrong?
> > You tried to install a package (what package? they don't exist) from a
> > repo that doesn't exist.
> >
>
> I tried a package that is not in backports, it was just for test (for an
> automation tool I use)
> It should fail with a *package not found* , but should not fail about
> buster-backports being non available.
>
> Is the problem linked to buster-backports not existing yet ? Is backports
> repo not created automatically on new releases?
>
buster-backports exists.  AIUI this is an apt bug when dealing with
empty repos.  (Although why are you setting default-release to
buster-backports?)

Cheers,
Julien

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: buster backports question/status

David Kalnischkies-4
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 11:42:40AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> buster-backports exists.  AIUI this is an apt bug when dealing with
> empty repos.  (Although why are you setting default-release to
> buster-backports?)

JFTR: Yes it is an apt "bug" in that empty repositories do not create
the structures apt is checking later on if a given target-release is
sensible – that is a feature since 0.8.15.3 (2011) btw → #407511.

I think we will end up creating the structures again for other reasons
so that error will disappear for this edgecase – but I have to second
the question as that seems wrong (and why I put "bug" in quotes).


Best regards

David Kalnischkies

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment