On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:23:56PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > Control: tags -1 moreinfo > > On Sun, 2016-09-25 at 16:46:56 -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote: > > Package: dpkg > > Version: 1.17.27 > > > When installing packages which *only* have files in /usr, I generally > > try to leave / read-only. With the recent release of `dpkg` though this > > has become problematic. > > Do you mean that it used to work, and it does not anymore. In which > case, what versions?
Anything 1.16.18 (oldstable) or earlier didn't exhibit this behavior. > > >From the error message, during unpacking `dpkg` is trying to create a > > file/directory as /usr.dpkg-tmp, which fails if / is read-only. This > > could actually cause some problems. Notably if `dpkg` is doing this to > > check whether the filesystem has sufficient free space, this check *WILL* > > fail since / and /usr could well be different filesystems. This could > > also cause trouble if /usr.dpkg-tmp is large and / has limited free > > space. > > This should not happen for pre-existing directories, and dpkg should > skip those. The actual error message would be helpful here. Also the > debug output from using -D113 would also be helpful. Sigh, really should have grabbed the full error. Mentioned a failure trying to do some operation on /usr.<something> and "read-only filesystem" (/usr was read-write, / was read-only). Remounting / read-write gets past the error, but I dislike that. Since the package had no files outside of /usr, this really shouldn't occur. > > I'm unsure how to rate the severity of this issue. This is distinctly > > annoying and can trigger warning flags, but I suppose in many cases it > > won't cause problems for people. Folks who always remount / read-write > > when upgrading packages may well not notice, but those of use who pay a > > bit more attention do notice. > > I'm actually very surprised by this bug report, because something > related was fixed in dpkg 1.17.14, so the version you are reporting > against should actually behave better for your use case: > > * Never try to remove the root directory or its backups. There's no point in > it, and makes life more difficult for a read-only root with a read-write > overlay or a symlink farm. Requested by sepero...@gmx.com. This isn't about the removal of something, this is about creating an unneeded extra file/directory outside of where any files should be being created. This file/directory is removed afterwords, but writing outside bothers me. -- (\___(\___(\______ --=> 8-) EHM <=-- ______/)___/)___/) \BS ( | ehem+sig...@m5p.com PGP 87145445 | ) / \_CS\ | _____ -O #include <stddisclaimer.h> O- _____ | / _/ 8A19\___\_|_/58D2 7E3D DDF4 7BA6 <-PGP-> 41D1 B375 37D0 8714\_|_/___/5445
