anyone else getting fails on apt-get update debian-9 ?

[Jon deps]

Err:7 https://cdn-aws.deb.debian.org/debian jessie-backports Release

404 Not Found
Reading package lists... Done

E: The repository 'https://deb.debian.org/debian jessie-backports
Release' does no longer have a Release file.
N: Updating from such a repository can't be done securely, and is
therefore disabled by default.
N: See apt-secure(8) manpage for repository creation and user
configuration details.

[haaber]

a test run inside an app vm (with direct sys-firewall access, to avoid
tor-related false errors) does confirm your observation for me. Is this
qubes-related or debian-related ? If the second one applies, we discuss
it in the wrong mailing list :)

[haaber]

> On 3/26/19 10:42 AM, Jon deps wrote:
>> Err:7 https://cdn-aws.deb.debian.org/debian jessie-backports Release
>> 404 Not Found
>> Reading package lists... Done
>> E: The repository 'https://deb.debian.org/debian jessie-backports
>> Release' does no longer have a Release file.
>> N: Updating from such a repository can't be done securely, and is
>> therefore disabled by default.
>> N: See apt-secure(8) manpage for repository creation and user
>> configuration details.
>>

looking at http://deb.debian.org/debian/dists/ shows that the
"jessie-backports" folder does not exist any longer. Maybe
"stable-backports" does the job ? (by the way, I never understood why
these version-names are preferred over functional-names like "stable",
"testing", etc in the apt files). If you need to install some of the
backports you may try this in /etc/apt/sources.list -- you may also
remove the "jessie-backports" form your apt files and it will work
(unless you need backports, of course :)

[unman]

It's not a Qubes issue.
jessie-backports was deprecated since June last year. The Release file
signing expired last month and it was removed from mirrors last week.

The packages can still be found at archive.debian.org, and you can
change your sources list to use this, but the Release file is still
expired.
You can work round this by getting a new copy of the signing key (if you
can) and updating with apt-key.

[unman]

stable-backports is stretch-backports.
One reason NOT to use functional-names is that when the next release
comes, "stable-backports" then points at backports for the new release,
as this example shows.
I always advocate using version names(for everything).
Shame that Qubes templates use formal numbering.

[haaber]

OK, agreed. Maybe it is time to switch to buster then. I cloned testwise
a debian-9 and replaced stretch by buster in /etc/apt-sources.list, but
I cannot dist-upgrade since it says "not enough space ...". Is there a
trick? I did apt-get clean already! Thank you, unman.

[Jon deps]

so do I need ?
deb https://deb.debian.org/debian jessie-backports main

( I don't even know what it is, I'm guessing it is the default
/etc/apt/sources.list

so maybe I missed a memo? )



if not then just #comment it out and problem solved ?

[haaber]

As we just learned, Unman is quite busy (thank you unman!). What I would
do, is to try it out in an AppVM : comment it out and run apt-get update
and then apt-get upgrade. If somethings messes, just shutdown the
AppVM (thereby taking all the mess into nirvana) : thats a short play
coming with no risk! If upgrading without that line works easily (I
guess so), do the same in the template. Bernhard


Bernhard

[Jon deps]

Sorry I don't see the point of doing it in an AppVM, myself. I
understand you think it might brake the package list, but I can always
just comment it back in and apt-get update, in my case Debian-9 is
not my main Template ......though it seems from reading here recently
maybe it should be .... ? :)

My question is , If this is the default /sources.list and users
don't regularly go and change their sources.list isn't this going
to break on everyone's systems and hence some attention should
be paid to it.



This posting is meant for the group, not any one user , be it Mr.
Unman or anyone




My 2nd question is simply what is backports anyway , and what would be
a suggested fix if #commenting it out ...... isn't a great idea ?

[unman]

Debian provides a relatively long lived stable release. Unfortunately
this means that the software can get somewhat dated. Backports is a way
of working round this by taking packages from the next release and back
porting them so that they work with stable. (Contrast this with the 9
monthly cycle of Fedora or 6 months for Ubuntu)
It wont add anything, and you would not (I think) never have installed
from that repository. You will lose nothing by commenting it out.

That line was included in error in a build of the Debian-9 template, and
has now been removed.
Sorry that I missed this - I overlooked the bit where you said it was
Debian-9.

unman