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 09-19-2012, 07:44 AM
Andreas Beckmann
 
Default mass bug filing about packages manipulating conffiles (policy 10.7.3) (was: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files)

Hi,

here is my proposed bug template for reporting conffile manipulation.
That will cover the majority of these bugs. Non-conffile manipulation
may need some more analysis and discussion.

If noone objects, I'll go ahead with filing these bugs with Severity:
serious since this is a violation of a "must" directive.

Piuparts will find these problems in squeeze as well and in order to
have piuparts-analyze do its job (marking logs from failed tests as
bugged), I may have to mark them as found in the squeeze version, too. I
do not expect this qualifies for updating the packages in squeeze,
though. Therefore I'm asking the Release Team for permission to tag them
as squeeze-ignore immediately.


===== 8< =====
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: modifies conffiles (policy 10.7.3):

Package:
Version:
Severity: serious
User: debian-qa@lists.debian.org
Usertags: piuparts

Hi,

during a test with piuparts I noticed your package modifies conffiles.
This is forbidden by the policy, see
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#s-config-files

10.7.3: "[...] The easy way to achieve this behavior is to make the
configuration file a conffile. [...] This implies that the default
version will be part of the package distribution, and must not be
modified by the maintainer scripts during installation (or at any
other time)."

Note that once a package ships a modified version of that conffile,
dpkg will prompt the user for an action how to handle the upgrade of
this modified conffile (that was not modified by the user).

Further in 10.7.3: "[...] must not ask unnecessary questions
(particularly during upgrades) [...]"

If a configuration file is customized by a maintainer script after
having asked some debconf questions, it may not be marked as a
conffile. Instead a template could be installed in /usr/share and used
by the postinst script to fill in the custom values and create (or
update) the configuration file (preserving any user modifications!).
This file must be removed during postrm purge.
ucf(1) may help with these tasks.
See also http://wiki.debian.org/DpkgConffileHandling

In https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/09/msg00412.html and
followups it has been agreed that these bugs are to be filed with
severity serious.

debsums reports modification of the following files:



cheers,
===== >8 =====

Andreas


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 505977D2.3030902@abeckmann.de">http://lists.debian.org/505977D2.3030902@abeckmann.de
 
Old 09-19-2012, 07:52 AM
Holger Levsen
 
Default mass bug filing about packages manipulating conffiles (policy 10.7.3) (was: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files)

Hi Andreas,

thanks for your work on this, again! :-)

On Mittwoch, 19. September 2012, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> ===== 8< =====
> To: submit@bugs.debian.org
> Subject: modifies conffiles (policy 10.7.3):

I miss one sentence in this mail template: "Please see the attached log for
details." :-)


cheers,
Holger


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201209190952.58081.holger@layer-acht.org">http://lists.debian.org/201209190952.58081.holger@layer-acht.org
 
Old 09-19-2012, 01:25 PM
"Adam D. Barratt"
 
Default mass bug filing about packages manipulating conffiles (policy 10.7.3) (was: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files)

On 19.09.2012 08:44, Andreas Beckmann wrote:

If noone objects, I'll go ahead with filing these bugs with Severity:
serious since this is a violation of a "must" directive.


Do we have an idea of how many such bugs there are affecting wheezy
currently? Apologies if that was answered earlier in the -devel thread,
I couldn't see it from a browse through.



Piuparts will find these problems in squeeze as well and in order to
have piuparts-analyze do its job (marking logs from failed tests as
bugged), I may have to mark them as found in the squeeze version,
too. I

do not expect this qualifies for updating the packages in squeeze,
though. Therefore I'm asking the Release Team for permission to tag
them

as squeeze-ignore immediately.


Ack on the squeeze-ignore; thanks.

Regards,

Adam


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 66ac4d7c5f53974ea9beb86fa4194487@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org">http://lists.debian.org/66ac4d7c5f53974ea9beb86fa4194487@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:48 AM.

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