Project

General

Profile

Bug #13416

Restore APT pinning of deb.tp.o

Added by anonym about 2 years ago. Updated 11 months ago.

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Elevated
Assignee:
-
Category:
-
Target version:
Start date:
07/04/2017
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Feature Branch:
bugfix/13416-restore-deb.tpo-APT-pinning
Type of work:
Code
Blueprint:
Starter:
Affected tool:

Description

I.e. revert commit 0e8ef1fe71bae0f48e8e65186a656e1e8169e7bc.


Related issues

Related to Tails - Bug #13253: Upgrade Tor to 0.3.0.9 Resolved 06/30/2017
Blocked by Tails - Bug #13413: torproject time-based snapshots for stretch pull from buster Resolved 07/04/2017
Blocks Tails - Feature #13234: Core work 2017Q3: Foundations Team Resolved 06/29/2017

Associated revisions

Revision d5d39ac6 (diff)
Added by intrigeri almost 2 years ago

Revert "Temporarily prioritize deb.t.b.o over deb.tp.o." (refs: #13416).

This reverts commit 0e8ef1fe71bae0f48e8e65186a656e1e8169e7bc.

Revision 40d7d811
Added by bertagaz almost 2 years ago

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/bugfix/13416-restore-deb.tpo-APT-pinning' into stable

Fix-committed: #13416

History

#1 Updated by anonym about 2 years ago

  • Related to Bug #13253: Upgrade Tor to 0.3.0.9 added

#2 Updated by anonym about 2 years ago

  • Blocked by Bug #13413: torproject time-based snapshots for stretch pull from buster added

#3 Updated by intrigeri about 2 years ago

Wow, that was a big hammer! I hope it doesn't have unintended consequences.

I'm curious: why didn't you instead add a pinning entry specific to the packages we explicitly wanted to pull from our own repo, and leave the defaults alone? I believe that's what the freeze exception doc explains (if not, then that's another ticket we need, please assign it to me).

#4 Updated by anonym about 2 years ago

intrigeri wrote:

Wow, that was a big hammer! I hope it doesn't have unintended consequences.

I'm curious: why didn't you instead add a pinning entry specific to the packages we explicitly wanted to pull from our own repo, and leave the defaults alone? I believe that's what the freeze exception doc explains (if not, then that's another ticket we need, please assign it to me).

The thought did not occur to me.

#5 Updated by intrigeri about 2 years ago

#6 Updated by intrigeri almost 2 years ago

  • Assignee set to intrigeri

#7 Updated by intrigeri almost 2 years ago

  • Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress
  • % Done changed from 0 to 10
  • Feature Branch set to bugfix/13416-restore-deb.tpo-APT-pinning

#8 Updated by intrigeri almost 2 years ago

  • Assignee changed from intrigeri to bertagaz
  • % Done changed from 10 to 50
  • QA Check set to Ready for QA

This branch produces the same .packages and build manifest as current stable, as expected and intended.

#9 Updated by bertagaz almost 2 years ago

intrigeri wrote:

This branch produces the same .packages and build manifest as current stable, as expected and intended.

Confirmed! I've merged it locally, I'll push that later.

#10 Updated by bertagaz almost 2 years ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Fix committed
  • Assignee deleted (bertagaz)
  • % Done changed from 50 to 100
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Pass

bertagaz wrote:

intrigeri wrote:

This branch produces the same .packages and build manifest as current stable, as expected and intended.

Confirmed! I've merged it locally, I'll push that later.

Done, pushed the merge.

#11 Updated by bertagaz almost 2 years ago

  • Status changed from Fix committed to Resolved

#12 Updated by intrigeri 11 months ago

segfault, this might be related to the problem you told me about yesterday.

#13 Updated by segfault 11 months ago

intrigeri wrote:

segfault, this might be related to the problem you told me about yesterday.

IIUC, this is about d5d39ac6865a96e3ae90dfd7f178b4d66b98275c, which only changes the pin priority, so it doesn't seem related to #15837, which is caused by an incorrect origin.

Also available in: Atom PDF