Bug#822265: apt-listbugs does not properly handle backports
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 23:22:06 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > Maybe some special handling of back-port version numbers could be > introduced in apt-listbugs, but I have to think about it a little bit. > I would like to avoid introducing some subtle bug, by messing up with > the version compare rules. > > I'll let you know, after I make up my mind. Hello again, I've just implemented and tested a special handling for back-ported versions: they are treated as if they were the corresponding official Debian packages. This special handling will be part of the next upload of apt-listbugs. Bye and thanks again for reporting the bug! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpSQQWUAOWae.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#822265: apt-listbugs does not properly handle backports
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 20:05:08 +0200 Rainer Dorsch wrote: > Package: apt-listbugs > Version: 0.1.16 > Severity: normal > > Dear Maintainer, Hello Rainer, thanks for your bug report! > > I updated libreoffice from jessie-backports recently. apt-listbugs listed > #820657 as > critical bug, which is supposed to be solved in version libreoffice/1:5.1.2-3. > The installation candidate was 1:5.1.2-3~bpo8+1, i.e. the version in which > the bug was > solved. Mmmmh, this is caused by the fact that version 1:5.1.2-3~bpo8+1 is meant to be considered (and is indeed considered) as earliest than version 1:5.1.2-3 ... $ dpkg --compare-versions 1:5.1.2-3~bpo8+1 lt 1:5.1.2-3 && echo yes yes Back-port versions are built this way, in order to keep the upgrade path safe [1][2]. [1] http://backports.debian.org/FAQ/ [2] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/footnotes.html#f37 So, in a sense, the issue you experienced could be considered as inherent in the back-port policy. Maybe some special handling of back-port version numbers could be introduced in apt-listbugs, but I have to think about it a little bit. I would like to avoid introducing some subtle bug, by messing up with the version compare rules. I'll let you know, after I make up my mind. Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpf5lBuVMWOg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#822265: apt-listbugs does not properly handle backports
Package: apt-listbugs Version: 0.1.16 Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, I updated libreoffice from jessie-backports recently. apt-listbugs listed #820657 as critical bug, which is supposed to be solved in version libreoffice/1:5.1.2-3. The installation candidate was 1:5.1.2-3~bpo8+1, i.e. the version in which the bug was solved. Here the (German localized) apt output during the upgrade: Möchten Sie fortfahren? [J/n] Laden der Fehlerberichte … Erledigt »Found/Fixed«-Informationen werden ausgewertet … Erledigt serious Fehler von libreoffice-common (1:5.1.1-1~bpo8+1 → 1:5.1.2-3~bpo8+1) b1 - #820657 - libreoffice-common: tries to owerwrite file from libreoffice-gtk (Gelöst: libreoffice/1:5.1.2-3) Zusammenfassung: libreoffice-common(1 Fehler) Sind Sie sicher, dass Sie die oben genannten Pakete installieren bzw. ein Upgrade von ihnen durchführen wollen? [Y/n/?/...] y -- System Information: Debian Release: 8.4 APT prefers stable APT policy: (500, 'stable'), (450, 'proposed-updates'), (400, 'testing'), (300, 'unstable'), (250, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 3.16.0-4-686-pae (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) Versions of packages apt-listbugs depends on: ii apt 1.0.9.8.3 ii ruby1:2.1.5+deb8u2 ii ruby-debian 0.3.9 ii ruby-gettext3.1.2-1 ii ruby-soap4r 2.0.5-3 ii ruby-unicode0.4.4-2+b3 ii ruby-xmlparser 0.7.2-3+b3 ii ruby2.1 [ruby-interpreter] 2.1.5-2+deb8u2 Versions of packages apt-listbugs recommends: ii ruby-httpclient 2.3.3-3.1 Versions of packages apt-listbugs suggests: ii chromium [www-browser] 50.0.2661.75-1~deb8u1 ii debianutils 4.4+b1 ii dwb [www-browser]20140702hg-2 ii firefox [www-browser]45.0.2-1~bpo80+1 ii konqueror [www-browser] 4:4.14.2-1 ii lynx-cur [www-browser] 2.8.9dev1-2+deb8u1 ii reportbug6.6.3 ii w3m [www-browser]0.5.3-19 -- no debconf information
