FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-17-2012, 09:16 PM
Andreas Beckmann
 
Default how to handle partial upgrade problems?

Hi,

I wanted to write a long and technical email about this subject ... and
started over, doing it this way:

I started looking for partial upgrade problems some time ago.
Any *valid* mixture of packages from, for example, squeeze and wheezy
(i.e. all (Pre-)Depends/Breaks/Conflicts are fulfilled) should be
installable without errors, shouldn't it?
Since there are probably A LOT of these valid combinations, I've
restricted my testing to candidates that are potentially more error
prone: packages that ship the same filename or where a filename was
moved from pkg1 to pkg2.

There are two common error classes:
* pkg2 is missing a versioned Replaces: pkg1
this usually results in a file overwrite error
* pkg2 is missing a versioned Breaks: pkg1
this results in files disappearing from pkg1 after the sequence
install pkg1, install pkg2, remove pkg2

If such bugs showed up on the upgrade paths tested by piuparts, they
have already been reported as release critical (and most of them have
been fixed long ago). But how should we handle these bugs in different
upgrade paths? As these are *valid* (at least w.r.t. not having
Breaks/Replaces that would forbid them) paths, shouldn't we properly
"invalidate" them?

I'd vote for filing them as RC bugs, too. We can never know which
upgrade path will be taken on a real system (with its unique set of
installed packages). And having the relationships tight from the
beginning will show less of these subtle errors after a release.

For those interested in numbers:
squeeze->wheezy file overwrites: 40 file disappearance: 84
wheezy->sid file overwrites: 2 file disappearance: 10

These numbers qualify for a mass bug filing discussion, too. Would it be
appropriate to do a RC MBF here?
And if this is confirmed, I could need some help doing this.

Or better, piuparts could use some help to make bug reporting easier. We
have collected quite some bug templates (text files with some gaps) over
time, but it still needs a lot of manual work: substituting values
(distros, package names, versions), inserting log snippets, attaching a
compressed logfile, ... before this can go to submit@. And that's just
after reading the logfile, classifying the problem we found and
selecting the template ... not to forget checking the BTS for existing
reports (that may just need usertagging).


Thanks go to Ralf Treinen, dose-debcheck, http://edos.debian.net/, and
piuparts.

Cheers!

Andreas

And apologies for working on getting the RC bug count up, not down :-)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 5057931A.4050108@abeckmann.de">http://lists.debian.org/5057931A.4050108@abeckmann.de
 
Old 09-18-2012, 10:46 AM
Ian Jackson
 
Default how to handle partial upgrade problems?

Andreas Beckmann writes ("how to handle partial upgrade problems?"):
> I wanted to write a long and technical email about this subject ... and
> started over, doing it this way:

Well done for this work by the way. Now, on to the substance:

> I started looking for partial upgrade problems some time ago.
> Any *valid* mixture of packages from, for example, squeeze and wheezy
> (i.e. all (Pre-)Depends/Breaks/Conflicts are fulfilled) should be
> installable without errors, shouldn't it?

Yes, I think so. Or at least, nearly any. There are probably edge
cases where the maintainers might say "this situation is too complex
to represent in the dependency system, but we have added a Recommends
which you should have honoured".

> Since there are probably A LOT of these valid combinations, I've
> restricted my testing to candidates that are potentially more error
> prone: packages that ship the same filename or where a filename was
> moved from pkg1 to pkg2.
>
> There are two common error classes:
> * pkg2 is missing a versioned Replaces: pkg1
> this usually results in a file overwrite error
> * pkg2 is missing a versioned Breaks: pkg1
> this results in files disappearing from pkg1 after the sequence
> install pkg1, install pkg2, remove pkg2

Uh, are these packages in the same release ? There should not be any
Breaks or Replaces between packages in the same release.

If they aren't, then the sequence in your second point is:

install old pkg1
--- new debian is released
install new pkg2
do not upgrade pkg1
remove new pkg2

And yes, this leaves pkg1 missing files. This sequence of actions is
not supported. Ie, Don't Do That Then; I think that isn't a bug.

If you think it is a bug and want to support this sequence of user
actions then I guess the Breaks is an answer. But this is a policy
question.

Ian.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20568.20719.162718.759621@chiark.greenend.org.uk"> http://lists.debian.org/20568.20719.162718.759621@chiark.greenend.org.uk
 
Old 09-18-2012, 11:07 AM
Andreas Beckmann
 
Default how to handle partial upgrade problems?

On 2012-09-18 12:46, Ian Jackson wrote:
> And yes, this leaves pkg1 missing files. This sequence of actions is
> not supported. Ie, Don't Do That Then; I think that isn't a bug.
>
> If you think it is a bug and want to support this sequence of user
> actions then I guess the Breaks is an answer. But this is a policy
> question.

Moving around files with proper Breaks/Replaces is described in the Policy:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-replaces
and the footnote 53
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/footnotes.html#f53
covers exactly the case of "disappearing files" due to missing Breaks.

Andreas


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 50585608.90903@abeckmann.de">http://lists.debian.org/50585608.90903@abeckmann.de
 
Old 09-19-2012, 10:12 AM
Ian Jackson
 
Default how to handle partial upgrade problems?

Andreas Beckmann writes ("Re: [Piuparts-devel] how to handle partial upgrade problems?"):
> Moving around files with proper Breaks/Replaces is described in the Policy:
> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-replaces
> and the footnote 53
> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/footnotes.html#f53
> covers exactly the case of "disappearing files" due to missing Breaks.

So it is. Sorry for not keeping up and for the noise.

Ian.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20569.39544.940162.550200@chiark.greenend.org.uk"> http://lists.debian.org/20569.39544.940162.550200@chiark.greenend.org.uk
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:23 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org