On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 09:38:42 -0500 Greg Wooledge <g...@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
