Your message dated Mon, 2 Oct 2006 01:35:42 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#238214: apt-get: warn the user when it is known that an
upgrade may break the package system
has caused the attached Bug report 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 I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: apt
Version: 0.5.23
Severity: wishlist
There should be a way to warn the user when some other user already
reported that an upgrade may break the package system, without having
a *clean* way to go back to a previous working state (for instance,
"apt-get install -f" doesn't work). This would behave a bit like what
apt-listbugs does, but would be specific to the package system. This
would probably require a new tag.
-- Package-specific info:
-- (/etc/apt/preferences present, but not submitted) --
-- (/etc/apt/sources.list present, but not submitted) --
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (900, 'testing'), (200, 'unstable')
Architecture: powerpc (ppc)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.18-newpmac
Locale: LANG=POSIX, LC_CTYPE=en_US.ISO8859-1
Versions of packages apt depends on:
ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-11 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libgcc1 1:3.3.3-1 GCC support library
ii libstdc++5 1:3.3.3-1 The GNU Standard C++ Library v3
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
reassign 238214 bugs.debian.org
severity 238214 wishlist
tag 238214 wontfix moreinfo
thanks
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2006-10-01 07:52:47 +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > You are requesting apt-listbugs to warn magically if it's potentially
> > dangerous to a user system.
>
> Not magically. There could be a new tag or something similar to
> indicate that some user has his package broken after upgrading some
> package.
If the package is broken upon install, the appropriate severity is at
least RC.
> That's the problem. Some bugs appear only with some configuration or
> with some (non-x86) architecture, and for this reason, maintainers
> will downgrade the bug severity to important or normal, even though
> the bug has nasty effects, such as a broken package system (i.e. no
> possible going back or fixing with "apt-get install -f") or data
> loss. In the case of bug 237509, it was because the bug didn't
> "affect people upgrading from woody".
*shrug*; that's the nature of the beast. There's no way to sanely
apply global tags to describe exactly in what circumstances bugs take
effect.
> This is a technical problem, as the severities can't express what
> the problem is exactly (or what the consequences are), making them
> incomplete.
It's an insolvable problem, not just a technical one.
Regardless, before reopening this bug, if you think additional
severities or tags are in order, you need to follow the instructions
in #144633 et al. and use usertags in order to implement it.
Don Armstrong
--
There are two types of people in this world, good and bad. The good
sleep better, but the bad seem to enjoy the waking hours much more.
-- Woody Allen
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
--- End Message ---
