Repo / packaging logistics: Private key + arch

[stdedos]

Should https://xpra.org/repos/bionic/xpra-beta.list match e.g. https://xpra.org/repos/bookworm/xpra-beta.list?

Similarly for https://xpra.org/repos/bionic/xpra.list

deb [ arch=amd64,arm64 signed-by=/usr/share/keyrings/xpra-2022.gpg ] https://xpra.org/ focal main
deb [ arch=amd64,arm64 signed-by=/usr/share/keyrings/xpra-2022.gpg ] https://xpra.org/beta/ focal main

[totaam]

Edit: Wait. I'm not seeing that.
Every /repos/distro/xpra[-beta].list should contain something.... https://xpra.org/[beta/] $distro main

[totaam]

Are you referring to the gpg key location and using a different key for different distros?
That would be: #3539 (comment) and #3485 (comment)

[stdedos]

Edit: Wait. I'm not seeing that.

I only copy-pasted the fixed lines for your convenience. I'm sorry if it looked like I implied "this is how https://xpra.org/repos/bionic/xpra.list looks like" 😓

Are you referring to the gpg key location and using a different key for different distros?

I am saying that: bionic is the only release not containing [ arch=amd64,arm64 signed-by=/usr/share/keyrings/xpra-2022.gpg ].

---

... but now I remembered, bionic is 18.04, which means ... I cannot test if [ arch=amd64,arm64 signed-by=/usr/share/keyrings/xpra-2022.gpg ] is actually valid for bionic or not.

[stdedos]

It is, however, valid for focal, which is also missing [ arch=amd64,arm64 signed-by=/usr/share/keyrings/xpra-2022.gpg ]:

$ curl https://xpra.org/repos/focal/xpra.list
deb https://xpra.org/ focal main
$ curl https://xpra.org/repos/focal/xpra-beta.list
deb https://xpra.org/beta/ focal main

[ehfd]

#3539
This, I would say, is more painless. Same template for all recent versions from 18.04 to 22.10 and similar Debian versions.

[totaam]

@stdedos I believe that it isn't present for focal, because it isn't needed there?

[ehfd]

I am saying that: bionic is the only release not containing [ arch=amd64,arm64 signed-by=/usr/share/keyrings/xpra-2022.gpg ].

This is actually invalid for bionic, and will error.

[ehfd]

I came back to #3539 because I was having the same issue when I needed uniformity for VS Code installation across versions.

[stdedos]

@stdedos I believe that it isn't present for focal, because it isn't needed there?

Depends on you definition of "needed", I guess. Ofc, I haven't verified "this" against a Canonical-clean Ubuntu Focal ISO, so (My) Milleage Might Vary

[stdedos]

#3539 This, I would say, is more painless. Same template for all recent versions from 18.04 to 22.10 and similar Debian versions.

"More or less painless" idk. Haven't used it ever, don't know how it works: Same-same-old-but-new to me.

apt-add-repository creates .list files (right now in my Ubuntu Focal at least), so ... I am using them anyway. Might as well have a "sane, secure, up-to-date" version of it.

[totaam]

This is superseded by #3539 - right?