Bug#927450: fixed in debian-security-support 2019.04.25
On Fri, 2019-04-26 at 09:26 +, Holger Levsen wrote: > I'm not really impressed by this fix either, cause it will also cause > breakage in xx months when the next stable arrives... Admittedly I haven't read the code in too much detail, but conceptually I'd expect the following: - either d-s-s is not so much dependant on the debian version, then this should simply not cause such bad failure (but rather give a warning or so) - or it in fact is strongly dependant (either semantically or technically), but then a Breaks/Conflichts/whatever is really justified as it would strongly need the "older" version of Debian. > IMO the code should deal more gracefully with this situation, but > such a > change would probably be to invasive now. At least the above with the deps would probably solve the problem for people upgrading to buster,... cause I guess they could still be hit by base-files being upgraded first and then their old d-s-s failing immediately. Cheers, Chris.
Bug#927450: fixed in debian-security-support 2019.04.25
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 03:31:42PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > Oh and btw: it still does fail on upgrade for systems which have the > old base-files and the old d-s-s, namely when apt upgrades base-files > before. I think I would prefer a new bug for this. Also suggestions how to fix this are welcome. -- tschau, Holger --- holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#927450: fixed in debian-security-support 2019.04.25
Oh and btw: it still does fail on upgrade for systems which have the old base-files and the old d-s-s, namely when apt upgrades base-files before. Cheers, Chris.
Bug#927450: fixed in debian-security-support 2019.04.25
Thanks for keeping this open. Packages should really not contain "time-bombs" like this. On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, Holger Levsen wrote: > control: severity -1 normal > control: retitle -1 debian-security-support needs to be adapted to each new > Debian release > thanks > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 12:34:44AM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > > As if I wouldn't have written it before... o.O > > talk is cheap, show me the code ;) Just make the error to be non-fatal instead of exiting with error and breaking the whole packaging system. Only as a proof of concept, I believe the patch below would be better than nothing, but of course you might want to do it with gettext and debconf to do it properly. Thanks. --- a/check-support-status.in +++ b/check-support-status.in @@ -22,7 +22,9 @@ fi if [ "$DEBIAN_VERSION" -lt "$DEB_LOWEST_VER_ID" ] || [ "$DEBIAN_VERSION" -gt "$DEB_NEXT_VER_ID" ] ; then eval_gettext "Unknown DEBIAN_VERSION \$DEBIAN_VERSION. Valid values from \$DEB_LOWEST_VER_ID and \$DEB_NEXT_VER_ID"; echo -exit 1 +echo "Warning: This package does nothing with the current installed version of Debian" +sleep 5 +exit 0 fi LIST=
Bug#927450: fixed in debian-security-support 2019.04.25
control: severity -1 normal control: retitle -1 debian-security-support needs to be adapted to each new Debian release thanks On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 12:34:44AM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > As if I wouldn't have written it before... o.O talk is cheap, show me the code ;) > Now all that was done is changing the value from 9 to 10 and it will > break again in xx months when the next-stable arrives an no one will > remember by then that this must be adapted... > > Can't you just set a Conflicts/Breaks against base-files >10 ... and > people won't again fall into that trap in the future? I'm not really impressed by this fix either, cause it will also cause breakage in xx months when the next stable arrives... IMO the code should deal more gracefully with this situation, but such a change would probably be to invasive now. -- tschau, Holger --- holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#927450: fixed in debian-security-support 2019.04.25
Control: reopen -1 As if I wouldn't have written it before... o.O Now all that was done is changing the value from 9 to 10 and it will break again in xx months when the next-stable arrives an no one will remember by then that this must be adapted... Can't you just set a Conflicts/Breaks against base-files >10 ... and people won't again fall into that trap in the future? Cheers,, Chris.
