reassign 737939 cdebootstrap thanks On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Stefan Lippers-Hollmann wrote:
> Package: base-files > Version: 7.2 > Severity: important > Tags: patch > X-Debbugs-Cc: Bastian Blank <[email protected]>, > Debian Install System Team <[email protected]>, > Colin Watson <[email protected]> > > Hi > > [ CC'ing the maintainers of the other involved packages, cdebootstrap, > base-passwd and cdebconf/ libdebconfclient0 ] > > Trying to cdebootstrap Debian unstable fails starting with the > 2014-01-10 22:01:06[2] dinstall (2014-01-10 16:12:15[1]) is still o.k.) > by throwing the following error condition: > > # cdebootstrap --arch=amd64 --flavour=minimal --debug --verbose sid /mnt/ > http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/ > […] > O: Setting up libdebconfclient0:amd64 (0.187) ... > P: Configuring package libdebconfclient0:amd64 > O: Setting up base-files (7.2) ... > P: Configuring package base-files > D: Updating base-files to status 3 > O: chown: invalid user: 'root:root' > O: dpkg: error processing package base-files (--configure): > O: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 > […] > O: Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.17-97) ... > O: Errors were encountered while processing: > O: base-files > O: bash > D: Status: 256 > E: Internal error: install > > The cause for this appears to be a subtile change of the implicit > package configuration order under cdebootstrap, triggered by > libdebconfclient0 gaining multi-arch qualifiers with 0.186 --> 0.187. > This results in base-passwd now being configured after base-files, > while base-files already depends on /etc/passwd and /etc/group from its > postinst: > > --- 20140110T161215Z > +++ 20140110T220106Z > @@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ P: Unpacking package tar > P: Unpacking package libtinfo5:amd64 > P: Unpacking package mawk > P: Unpacking package base-files > -P: Unpacking package libdebconfclient0 > +P: Unpacking package libdebconfclient0:amd64 > P: Unpacking package base-passwd > P: Unpacking package sensible-utils > P: Unpacking package debianutils > @@ -309,8 +309,6 @@ P: Configuring package debianutils > P: Configuring package bsdutils > P: Configuring package perl-base > P: Configuring package diffutils > -P: Configuring package libdebconfclient0 > -P: Configuring package base-passwd > P: Configuring package mawk > P: Configuring package hostname > P: Configuring package findutils > @@ -324,9 +322,11 @@ P: Configuring package libsepol1:amd64 > P: Configuring package tzdata > P: Configuring package zlib1g:amd64 > P: Configuring package libgcc1:amd64 > +P: Configuring package libdebconfclient0:amd64 > P: Configuring package base-files > P: Configuring package libattr1:amd64 > P: Configuring package e2fslibs:amd64 > +P: Configuring package base-passwd > P: Configuring package libcomerr2:amd64 > P: Configuring package libacl1:amd64 > P: Configuring package libslang2:amd64 > > I think this should be solvable by declaring a dependency on > base-passwd to base-files, so base-passwd gets configured before > base-files' postinst tries to use chown: > > diff -Nrup a/debian/control b/debian/control > --- a/debian/control > +++ b/debian/control > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ Package: base-files > Provides: base > Architecture: any > Pre-Depends: awk > +Depends: base-passwd > Essential: yes > Priority: required > Replaces: base, miscutils, dpkg (<= 1.15.0) > > Given that this cdebootstrap breakage affects the first bootstrap > phase, I have not been able to actually test this patch, but I hope > it fixes the problem. This is certainly a bug, but base-passwd is "Essential: yes" and policy says packages do not need to depend on essential packages, so this would not be the right fix. It could even be true that applying the patch fixes the problem, but even in that case it would not be a good way to fix it, because there will always be circular dependencies among essential packages and we should not rely on them for package configuration order. Instead, this is a problem that should be fixed in cdebootstrap, hence the reassign. Thanks for the report. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
