Hi Lucas, On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 10:03:35PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > 332 packages installed OK, but failed to remove. I believe that the > number of false positives amongst those is very low (probably under > 20%). Of course, it doesn't mean 332 possible RC bugs, since some > packages failed because of others (e.g bacula failed because > bacula-common). Popular reasons include:
> 149 /usr/share/debconf/confmodule: No such file or directory > 44 (userdel|deluser): command not found > 17 update-inetd: command not found > 5 ucf: command not found > 4 (groupdel|delgroup): command not found > What do we do with that ? In another piuparts campaign at the end of > last year, I filed quite a lot of bugs, but voluntarily ignored > missing depends on packages of priority >= important, and missing > depends on ucf (which is prio:optional), just to keep the number of > failures manageable. Should we concentrate on finding "important" > failures (packages with missing depends|pre-depends on packages with > priority < important), or do we want to consider all those bugs RC ? As previously discussed, use of debconf in the postrm is not RC because it's a package of priority: required, so removing it in a purge run together with the depending package is something of a pathological use case. Likewise, the userdel and groupdel commands are from the passwd package, which is of prio: required. However, the deluser/delgroup commands are *not* from passwd, they're from adduser, which is prio: important and thus subject to removal, just like update-inetd and ucf are. So those four classes of bugs are potentially RC for etch, though we may ultimately decide to etch-ignore unfixed ones if they would otherwise hold up the release. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
