Bug#994275: Draft resolution for reverting changes in debianutils

2021-10-17 Thread Wookey 
On 2021-10-13 19:37 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> Sean Whitton  writes:

> >The which(1) program must not print any deprecation warnings.
> 
> I remain to be convinced on this point. If I understand the issue
> correctly the problem is with autopkgtests failing because they were not
> expecting output on stderr.

It's not just that. Builds fail too. tensorflow now FTBFS in unstable
because of this change, and the way bazel deals (or fails to deal)
with it. I gave details further up the thread.

> I understand that people find the message annoying, and perhaps not that
> useful, but I don't think that rises the level justifying overriding a
> maintainer.

I think causing build failures is enough reason to say this. I don't
suppose that mine is the only one. Yes those builds are buggy and
should not do this, and we should make efforts to find out why bazel
(or possibly the build scripts it is operating on) is/are so crappy,
but for now I agree that reverting this is the right thing to do.

We have time to do this transition properly and quietly in the
background, without causing random breakage. A message about a binary
moving from one package to another does not need to be printed on
every usage of that binary. Indeed it is actively unhelpful to do so.

Wookey
-- 
Principal hats:  Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM
http://wookware.org/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-10-17 Thread Felix Lechner 
Hi,

On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 1:45 AM Sebastian Ramacher  wrote:
>
> the lintian tag
> possibly-insecure-handling-of-tmp-files-in-maintainer-script still
> recommend "tempfile or mktemp".

Lintian's last remaining reference to 'tempfile' was dropped. [1] The
updated tag description is now live on our website. [2]

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

[1] 
https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/commit/af93172c7a9ef326a68fd337c5089c52b74eb3f5
[2] 
https://lintian.debian.org/tags/possibly-insecure-handling-of-tmp-files-in-maintainer-script

Bug#994275: Reverting breaking changes in debianutils

2021-10-17 Thread James Cloos 
> "CA" == Clint Adams  writes:

CA> However, I don't think that this is reasonable for tempfile(1) unless
CA> someone is actually willing to package and maintain a tempfile(1).

just saw this..

i got hit by the removal of tepfile(1); pv-grub-menu uses it in its
postint script and its removal started blocking my apt upgrades.  i had
to copy tempfile over from a virt stuck on an older deb to get around it.

(cf https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=996101)

it would be useful to ensure no packages rely on something before
removing it...

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos  OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6