On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Micah Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi all, > > It seems that an isolated group of us has come to a mini-consensus about > #5604, but I wanted to post to the list to get some wider discussion. > > As detailed in #5604, the puppet apt provider mysteriously, and rather > aggressively, disables apt-listchanges using an environment > variable. This is a big ugly, and makes use of apt-listchanges > impossible. It turns out that in an effort to fix #4418, which has to do > with apt-listBUGS, apt-listCHANGES was also impacted. The bug was about > apt-listBUGS, not apt-listCHANGES. > > in /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/puppet/provider/package/apt.rb there is this: > <pre> > ENV['APT_LISTCHANGES_FRONTEND'] = "none" > </pre> > > Which is used by apt-listchanges in ./apt-listchanges/ALCConfig.py. > > According to git logs, this was changed in b0636354 (Dean Wilson > 2010-08-13 13:50:52 +0100 19) with the commit msg: "Skip apt-listbugs > and apt-listchanges when installing from puppet", but with no rationale. > > I think that if puppet wants to help people who have configured some > software wrong (which is possible to do with apt-listchanges, you can > configure it to use a pager interface, which will make puppet hang), > then puppet should detect that and error/warn. It shouldn't just > silently break the program completely. > > A hack around this would be to detect if the front-end of > apt-listchanges is set to anything other than 'mail' or 'text' and then > notify the admin that this wont work. Or just whitelist known > non-interactive front-ends, so that things that should work do work. > > It seems to me that the bug fixed in #4418 was just too aggressive. It > shouldn't have touched apt-listchanges, as the bug doesn't even mention > that program... it should have only dealt with apt-listbugs. If someone > *did* file a bug about apt-listchanges, the right solution probably > would be to tell the person to configure their apt-listchanges properly, > rather than try to be really clever (and obscure) in puppet, although > whitelisting might be a proactive way of heading that off at the pass. > > Thoughts? > > It sounds like what we really want to do is simply set APT_LISTBUGS_FRONTEND="none" right? That should achieve the original goal and remove this problem? -- Nigel Kersten Product, Puppet Labs @nigelkersten -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
