Bug#529720: crm114: Changes in .css files leads to data loss
[Better late than never.] The discussion with upstream has lead to no better solution than already proposed, i.e. prompting the users on upgrade. Future crm114 versions may provide .css incompatibilities again (e.g. the recently released beta version does). So I've uploaded new package version today that implements debconf prompting. I tried to be as aggressive with the prompting as possible: - The prompting is performed in preinst. This is probably generally very discouraged, but I don't know about a better place for the given purpose. - I ask a boolean debconf question instead of using a note. This enforces user confirmation of the prompt. - The debconf option value is reset before prompting in order to enforce displaying the question. Would you please review `preinst' script and debconf `templates' in crm114 20090423-2 to check whether they do the right thing? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#529720: crm114: Changes in .css files leads to data loss
Quoting Milan Zamazal (p...@debian.org): So I've uploaded new package version today that implements debconf prompting. I tried to be as aggressive with the prompting as possible: Seems fair. Would you please review `preinst' script and debconf `templates' in crm114 20090423-2 to check whether they do the right thing? I'll anyway launch a review of the template (and while at it a review of debian/control) for English, writing style, etc., just as I always do for all packages that introduce debconf templates. This will be followed by a round of translation updates. Details will be in review announcement messages... -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#529720: crm114: Changes in .css files leads to data loss
Package: crm114 Version: 20090423-1 Severity: critical Justification: causes serious data loss Changes (again...) in .css files just made me lose about one full day of mail... All non whitelisted mails were apparently just trashed after the line, in my .procmailrc, where they're piped to crm114. Oh, I certainly got warned by mail as there is a NEWS.Debian entry about this...and I ust apt-listchanges. Unfortunately, that mail got trashed just like others. I find such change inacceptable for release and I already imagine what wll happen to people who upgrade their mail servers from lenny to squeeze. Actually, even the advice of recreating .css files is another way to lose data. I'm really very seriously considering if I should keep on using crm114 if such changes happen and, at this very moment, I don't think this software verson is suitable for release in Debian. -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.29-1-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core) Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages crm114 depends on: ii libc6 2.9-12 GNU C Library: Shared libraries ii libtre4 0.7.5-2regexp matching library with appro Versions of packages crm114 recommends: ii metamail 2.7-54 implementation of MIME crm114 suggests no packages. -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#529720: crm114: Changes in .css files leads to data loss
CP == Christian Perrier bubu...@debian.org writes: CP Oh, I certainly got warned by mail as there is a NEWS.Debian CP entry about this...and I ust apt-listchanges. Unfortunately, CP that mail got trashed just like others. If you want to prevent such problems, configure apt-listchanges to display information before installation and to ask for confirmation. CP I find such change inacceptable for release and I already CP imagine what wll happen to people who upgrade their mail servers CP from lenny to squeeze. This has nothing to do with Debian. It's an upstream decision. It's definitely not popular and if you hate it so much, there are some options what you can do: 1. complain upstream; 2. use other classifier than crm114; 3. fork crm114 and develop and maintain your own derivate; 4. write a .css file converter. CP Actually, even the advice of recreating .css files is another CP way to lose data. I don't understand. Recreating the .css files with mailreaver is relatively easy and may even clean up and improve the .css files. CP I'm really very seriously considering if I should keep on using CP crm114 if such changes happen and, at this very moment, I don't CP think this software verson is suitable for release in Debian. I can understand your rage but as I've explained above I can't see in your report what I should fix in the Debian package. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#529720: crm114: Changes in .css files leads to data loss
Le jeudi 21 mai 2009 à 08:36 +0200, Milan Zamazal a écrit : CP == Christian Perrier bubu...@debian.org writes: CP Oh, I certainly got warned by mail as there is a NEWS.Debian CP entry about this...and I ust apt-listchanges. Unfortunately, CP that mail got trashed just like others. If you want to prevent such problems, configure apt-listchanges to display information before installation and to ask for confirmation. Sorry, but the existence of apt-listchanges is not an excuse for completely breaking existing setups. It can be an excuse for some more or less important glitches, but not for losing data. This has nothing to do with Debian. Of course it has to do with Debian, it’s a Debian package. If you don’t want it to be a Debian problem, maintain the package in your own repository. I don't understand. Recreating the .css files with mailreaver is relatively easy and may even clean up and improve the .css files. The problem is not whether this is easy or not. The problem is that you broke existing setups in a way that leads to serious data loss. I can understand your rage but as I've explained above I can't see in your report what I should fix in the Debian package. Simple: if there is no reasonable upgrade path, you need to change the binary package name. And of course, to do that in a way that does not install the new version automatically. Bonus points go for changing the binary names as well, so that both versions can be installed at once on the system. Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Bug#529720: crm114: Changes in .css files leads to data loss
JM == Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes: JM Simple: if there is no reasonable upgrade path, you need to JM change the binary package name. And of course, to do that in a JM way that does not install the new version automatically. This may be a good idea. Do you know about packages with similar properties (i.e. changing their data formats incompatibly) so that I don't invent my own binary package naming scheme? I can think about PostgreSQL, but this is bound to upstream versions which is not the case of crm114 (it doesn't change its data format with each upstream version). JM Bonus points go for changing the binary names as well, so that JM both versions can be installed at once on the system. I hate changing binary names across releases. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#529720: crm114: Changes in .css files leads to data loss
Quoting Milan Zamazal (p...@debian.org): CP == Christian Perrier bubu...@debian.org writes: CP Oh, I certainly got warned by mail as there is a NEWS.Debian CP entry about this...and I ust apt-listchanges. Unfortunately, CP that mail got trashed just like others. If you want to prevent such problems, configure apt-listchanges to display information before installation and to ask for confirmation. Just as Joss answered, apt-listchanges should not be an excuse to break existing setups. CP I find such change inacceptable for release and I already CP imagine what wll happen to people who upgrade their mail servers CP from lenny to squeeze. This has nothing to do with Debian. It's an upstream decision. It's definitely not popular and if you hate it so much, there are some options what you can do: 1. complain upstream; 2. use other classifier than crm114; 3. fork crm114 and develop and maintain your own derivate; 4. write a .css file converter. The duty of the Debian maintainer is to smooth down impacts from upstream changes. One of the recognized qualities of Debian is such stability. So, we need to prepare our stable releases to avoid such breakages. Another is probably bringing feedback to upstream that such changes are very unwished by their users. I admit that, as I'm using unstable, I'm opened to such breakage and, even though that costed me a full day of worthy mail (which in turn could cost the various parts of Debian I work on several consequences because I may have missed important mails). That I can live with, in some way. But, at least, I expect my problems to benefit other users and particularly to avoid what I consider to be enhanced to enter testing and then break much more setups. CP I'm really very seriously considering if I should keep on using CP crm114 if such changes happen and, at this very moment, I don't CP think this software verson is suitable for release in Debian. I can understand your rage but as I've explained above I can't see in your report what I should fix in the Debian package. At the very minimum, a critical priority debconf note displayed when upgrading from a pre-20090423 version would be a good way to try your best preventing the problem to appear. Debconf notes are discouraged but I think that, here, we have a case where it would be better having it than nothing. I also came back on the NEWS.Debian entry and I think it is not alarming enough as it mentions on some architectures (which a careless reader would translate to probably not on the most common ones) and it just mentions that CRM114 might not work but not thatmails piped through it will vanish. Maybe more people will come up with better suggestions. I really think that this bug should remain release critical so that it gets the deserved attention by both you and other developers (I bet that many use crm114 and many clever people can come up with good suggestionsthis is also what RC bugs are about). Please accept some forms of apologies for showing up my rage in the bug report (I admit I was) but also please don't take the RC bug as a personal attack but more as a way to help you to provide the best possible package for that software. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#529720: crm114: Changes in .css files leads to data loss
On 0, Milan Zamazal p...@debian.org wrote: This may be a good idea. Do you know about packages with similar properties (i.e. changing their data formats incompatibly) so that I don't invent my own binary package naming scheme? Unison maintainer did that for some period because of protocol changes. There have been unison and unison2.13.16 installable and usable together in the same system, thank to alternatives. The latter was kept for compatibility reasons with older distributions. HTH, -- Mehdi Dogguy http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~dogguy/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#529720: crm114: Changes in .css files leads to data loss
CP == Christian Perrier bubu...@debian.org writes: CP The duty of the Debian maintainer is to smooth down impacts from CP upstream changes. One of the recognized qualities of Debian is CP such stability. So, we need to prepare our stable releases to CP avoid such breakages. CP Another is probably bringing feedback to upstream that such CP changes are very unwished by their users. This is not the first time .css format change has happened. And yes, it was reported and discussed upstream in the past. They are willing to avoid such changes but it may not always be easy. More pressure (i.e. from more users) on the upstream maintainers may or may not improve things. The .css format is generally not considered as very fixed, e.g. it's not portable across architectures after all. There were other upgrade problems in the past. For instance, I personally don't simply believe .crm scripts from the last version work with a new one without changes and I always test that crm114 still works after the upgrade. I'd say that backward compatibility is not a crm114 feature and one must expect problems when upgrading crm114 to a new version. Of course, a user may not think about crm114 when typing `apt-get upgrade'. This wouldn't be a big problem if crm114 wasn't typically used for things like e-mail delivery. So the primary problem is how to _warn_ users that crm114 gets upgraded with higher than casual risk of breaking things. The current practice of warning about important changes in NEWS.Debian seemed to work well so far. But I agree it may not be enough and I'm open to suggestions how to improve it. CP But, at least, I expect my problems to benefit other users and CP particularly to avoid what I consider to be enhanced to enter CP testing and then break much more setups. Sure, you brave unstable users get hit by such problems and by reporting them you prevent wider impacts. CP At the very minimum, a critical priority debconf note displayed CP when upgrading from a pre-20090423 version would be a good way CP to try your best preventing the problem to appear. Debconf notes CP are discouraged but I think that, here, we have a case where it CP would be better having it than nothing. Right now, I like this suggestion better than the binary package name changes. Some might not like it, but I may just try to add it and we'll see what happens. CP I also came back on the NEWS.Debian entry and I think it is not CP alarming enough as it mentions on some architectures (which a CP careless reader would translate to probably not on the most CP common ones) and it just mentions that CRM114 might not work CP but not thatmails piped through it will vanish. Good remark. CP Maybe more people will come up with better suggestions. If no applicable precedent in other Debian packages is presented here, I'll probably discuss the problem on debian-mentors. CP I really think that this bug should remain release critical so CP that it gets the deserved attention by both you and other CP developers (I bet that many use crm114 and many clever people CP can come up with good suggestionsthis is also what RC bugs CP are about). Of course, I don't get rid of RC bugs without discussing them first. CP Please accept some forms of apologies for showing up my rage CP in the bug report (I admit I was) but also please don't take the CP RC bug as a personal attack but more as a way to help you to CP provide the best possible package for that software. There is no need to apologize. I just missed identification of the _Debian package_ problem in your initial report and you've fixed it now. :-) Thanks for the report. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#529720: crm114: Changes in .css files leads to data loss
MD == Mehdi Dogguy mehdi.dog...@pps.jussieu.fr writes: MD Unison maintainer did that for some period because of protocol MD changes. There have been unison and unison2.13.16 installable MD and usable together in the same system, thank to MD alternatives. The latter was kept for compatibility reasons with MD older distributions. Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not familiar with the unison case, but I guess the split was introduced to be able to talk to other computers? This is not the case with crm114, I can't see any common reason having more than one crm114 version on a single computer. The crm114 problem is different, how to prevent unnoticed upgrade. Josselin, it's not clear to me how your package name arrangement would ensure the opposite thing, that people don't miss new versions. E.g. when one upgrades from lenny to squeeze, he could end up with old lenny crm114 package after the upgrade, without noticing there is something new in squeeze. Or when one performs regular unstable updates, how to retain crm114 up to date? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#529720: crm114: Changes in .css files leads to data loss
Quoting Milan Zamazal (p...@debian.org): CP At the very minimum, a critical priority debconf note displayed CP when upgrading from a pre-20090423 version would be a good way CP to try your best preventing the problem to appear. Debconf notes CP are discouraged but I think that, here, we have a case where it CP would be better having it than nothing. Right now, I like this suggestion better than the binary package name changes. Some might not like it, but I may just try to add it and we'll see what happens. In such case, I'd suggest having a good review of the debconf template on debian-l10n-english (that's one of my hats in Debian) as well as getting a good round of translations for this update (that's another of my hats). In short, I'd volunteer to coordinate this. That's certainly a much simpler method...but actually not a universal one (it won't work if people use the noninteractive debconf frontend). Still, probably better than NEWS.Debian alone. CP Maybe more people will come up with better suggestions. If no applicable precedent in other Debian packages is presented here, I'll probably discuss the problem on debian-mentors. Other packages have been using debconf notes in such cases. It not completely widely accepted (I'm personnally a big fighter against useless notes) but it is accepted that, in few cases, it is an acceptable solution. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
