Your message dated Wed, 08 Jan 2014 17:18:29 +0000
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Bug#728022: fixed in snooper 19991202-7.2
has caused the Debian Bug report #728022,
regarding snooper: Replace use of lockdev with flock
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)


-- 
728022: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=728022
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: snooper
Version: 19991202-7.1
Severity: normal

Dear maintainer,

I'm writing to you as the maintainer of lockdev (liblockdev1).  I've
opened this bug because your package either has a build-depends on
liblockdev1-dev or is building binary packages with a dependency on
liblockdev1.

lockdev implements a library interface around the SYSV-style UUCP
device locks for TTY devices.  However, this type of locking is
deprecated and unnecessary, at least on Linux; I'm not sure of the
status on kFreeBSD.  The recommended alternative is direct use of
flock(2) on the corresponding device node.  This will ensure that
locking will work properly with other programs also locking the device
node, and since the locks are implemented in the kernel, there's no
need for racy creation and deletion of lockfiles with the owner PID,
and no possibility of PID clashes or failure to reclaim lost locks if
the PID is reused.  That is to say, the flock(2) interface is
guaranteed to be robust, while lockdev is not.  For users not using
the C API (for example scripts), flock(1) from util-linux provides a
wrapper.

I'd like to remove lockdev entirely for jessie, providing that it's
possible to do so without breakage.  Likewise I'd also like to convert
packages using UUCP-style locks which don't use lockdev.  We currently
have at least three methods of device locking (UUCP-with-lockdev,
UUCP-without-lockdev and direct-flock), all of which have overlapping
or completely orthogonal semantics, which will result in not
respecting the other lock types if used in combination.  Hence the
need to reduce this to a single robust locking strategy: just locking
the device directly.

It would be greatly appreciated if you could disable/remove lockdev
support from your package and remove it from the source build-depends
and/or package depends as appropriate, replacing this with flock(2)
calls instead of dev_lock and dev_unlock.


Many thanks,
Roger Leigh


-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (550, 'unstable'), (400, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.11-1-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages snooper depends on:
ii  libc6        2.17-93
ii  liblockdev1  1.0.3-1.5+b1
ii  libncurses5  5.9+20130608-1
ii  libtinfo5    5.9+20130608-1

snooper recommends no packages.

snooper suggests no packages.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Source: snooper
Source-Version: 19991202-7.2

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
snooper, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.

A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to [email protected],
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Roger Leigh <[email protected]> (supplier of updated snooper package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing [email protected])


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 16:32:47 +0000
Source: snooper
Binary: snooper
Architecture: source amd64
Version: 19991202-7.2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Stefan Bauer <[email protected]>
Changed-By: Roger Leigh <[email protected]>
Description: 
 snooper    - Captures communication between two external serial devices
Closes: 728022
Changes: 
 snooper (19991202-7.2) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * Non-maintainer upload.
   * debian/patches/01-Unknown-changes-to-Makefile.in.diff:
     Drop -DHAVE_LIBLOCKDEV from CFLAGS and -llockdev from LIBS to
     disable liblockdev support (Closes: #728022).  Ideally, the
     upstream may wish to properly replace the UUCP-style locks
     in uucplock.c with robust flock(2) locks.
Checksums-Sha1: 
 7d3bb93428a172303bbb05187b44ce21a224f949 1735 snooper_19991202-7.2.dsc
 7f52ed24c24e73f9b9321db3262d2f900db764d3 16540 snooper_19991202-7.2.diff.gz
 033eb4bc2284c68d15f13533f9dc0de644f920c8 17296 snooper_19991202-7.2_amd64.deb
Checksums-Sha256: 
 c0786f936ff62cd6f9ae4eebf76389adabf12f1daee534c30d5105968f108a13 1735 
snooper_19991202-7.2.dsc
 ab4288eebcbb6e79e9d29d15fffe7e79d7732f6112da6a5f6401c43f00e01b51 16540 
snooper_19991202-7.2.diff.gz
 5179cf1016f6f4f0bd4aae274a4205a0c0ad650fa05f9cf4eff6089beb30f1e0 17296 
snooper_19991202-7.2_amd64.deb
Files: 
 68aa88de53d40178e7990934a4e60538 1735 comm optional snooper_19991202-7.2.dsc
 45dfaa2cd4bd9e3e5cc85995c5eea3ff 16540 comm optional 
snooper_19991202-7.2.diff.gz
 a2c758542e75e24aaed9aa8709933e8c 17296 comm optional 
snooper_19991202-7.2_amd64.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux)
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=Y9S2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- End Message ---

Reply via email to