Bug#698778: preapproval of expect/5.45-3
Hi, Sergei Golovan wrote (29 Sep 2013 22:07:34 GMT) : On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 1:59 AM, Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org wrote: Sergei Golovan sgolo...@nes.ru (2013-09-30): I've uploaded this change to unstable (and it already hit testing). No complains whatsoever. yes, I saw that, and that's nice. That doesn't buy us squeeze→wheezy upgrade testing, though, which is what we would like to avoid breaking or worsening. True. But as far as I see, the current situation with this upgrade is far from perfect. It silently breaks expectk and packages which depend on it. With conflict the user can choose whether to remove expectk or to retain the old expect. My understanding is that this 1-year old proposed update will be blocked as long as no super-serious testing of its effect on the Squeeze-Wheezy upgrade is done. Does anyone here intend to do so at some point, or should we close this bug? Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8561pdmcuk@boum.org
Bug#698778: preapproval of expect/5.45-3
[ Dropping Holger from Cc, jenkins is more or less irrelevant anyway. ] Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org (2013-03-19): On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 13:36:31 +0100, intrigeri wrote: I suggest preparing and proposing a Jenkins dist-upgrade job (either as a patch against an existing appropriate job, or as a new job) to Holger (Cc'd), so that we have an easy way to verify that the Squeeze to Wheezy upgrade is indeed working fine with the proposed change. Does this test random combinations of installed packages? I'm slightly conflicted (no pun intended) about this proposed update. The change looks rather straightforward, and the amount of involved packages isn't too huge (expectk + xsmbrowser, which seems to be confirmed by simulating expectk's removal from oldstable). But adding Breaks or Conflicts sometimes leads to huge side effects as far as upgrade computations are concerned in the package manager land. Julien, any prefered action? Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#698778: preapproval of expect/5.45-3
Hi Cyril, On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org wrote: [ Dropping Holger from Cc, jenkins is more or less irrelevant anyway. ] Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org (2013-03-19): On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 13:36:31 +0100, intrigeri wrote: I suggest preparing and proposing a Jenkins dist-upgrade job (either as a patch against an existing appropriate job, or as a new job) to Holger (Cc'd), so that we have an easy way to verify that the Squeeze to Wheezy upgrade is indeed working fine with the proposed change. Does this test random combinations of installed packages? I'm slightly conflicted (no pun intended) about this proposed update. The change looks rather straightforward, and the amount of involved packages isn't too huge (expectk + xsmbrowser, which seems to be confirmed by simulating expectk's removal from oldstable). But adding Breaks or Conflicts sometimes leads to huge side effects as far as upgrade computations are concerned in the package manager land. I've uploaded this change to unstable (and it already hit testing). No complains whatsoever. Cheers! -- Sergei Golovan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caoq2pxhyw26-hvlwzb2mnz+dodxlyypt5unq2crgipqmbjo...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#698778: preapproval of expect/5.45-3
Hi Sergei, Sergei Golovan sgolo...@nes.ru (2013-09-30): I've uploaded this change to unstable (and it already hit testing). No complains whatsoever. yes, I saw that, and that's nice. That doesn't buy us squeeze→wheezy upgrade testing, though, which is what we would like to avoid breaking or worsening. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#698778: preapproval of expect/5.45-3
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 1:59 AM, Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org wrote: Hi Sergei, Sergei Golovan sgolo...@nes.ru (2013-09-30): I've uploaded this change to unstable (and it already hit testing). No complains whatsoever. yes, I saw that, and that's nice. That doesn't buy us squeeze→wheezy upgrade testing, though, which is what we would like to avoid breaking or worsening. True. But as far as I see, the current situation with this upgrade is far from perfect. It silently breaks expectk and packages which depend on it. With conflict the user can choose whether to remove expectk or to retain the old expect. Cheers! -- Sergei Golovan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caoq2pxf0dwj0ib-2n+q+h5hoiksjaaalrrxh8ewtmc0nzab...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#698778: preapproval of expect/5.45-3
user release.debian@packages.debian.org usertags 698778 = pu tags 698778 + wheezy retitle 698778 pu: expect/5.45-2+deb7u1 thanks On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 15:02 +0400, Sergei Golovan wrote: On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Sergei Golovan sgolo...@nes.ru wrote: expectk has two reverse dependencies in squeeze: exmh (suggests) xsmbrowser (depends). Both are removed from wheezy and sid. Currently, update expect from squeeze (5.44.1.15-4) to wheezy (5.45-2) goes silently, leaving expectk broken (/usr/bin/expectk fails to run with the following message: /usr/bin/expectk: error while loading shared libraries: libexpect.so.5.44.1.15: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory). If exmh is installed it continues working, though I'm not sure if somewhere deep exmh will not try to run no more working expectk. xsmbrowser fails immediately with the same message as expectk (bug #686364). Dist-upgrade to proposed 5.45-3 removes expectk and xsmbrowser (if they are installed). It's a desirable behavior as neither package works with expect 5.45-*. exmh stays and runs. I didn't try full upgrate from squeeze to wheezy, just these four packages (expect, expectk, xambrowser, exmh) in wheezy. I think that the proposed 5.45-3 behaves better than 5.45-2 on upgrade. Should I proceed with upload, or it's better to leave this bug till after wheezy release? It's too late now; let's look at the feasibility of this later for a point release. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1366564765.23177.79.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Processed: Re: Bug#698778: preapproval of expect/5.45-3
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: user release.debian@packages.debian.org Setting user to release.debian@packages.debian.org (was a...@adam-barratt.org.uk). usertags 698778 = pu Usertags were: unblock. Usertags are now: pu. tags 698778 + wheezy Bug #698778 [release.debian.org] preapproval of expect/5.45-3 Added tag(s) wheezy. retitle 698778 pu: expect/5.45-2+deb7u1 Bug #698778 [release.debian.org] preapproval of expect/5.45-3 Changed Bug title to 'pu: expect/5.45-2+deb7u1' from 'preapproval of expect/5.45-3' thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 698778: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=698778 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.136656477325380.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#698778: preapproval of expect/5.45-3
Control: tag -1 + moreinfo Hi Sergei, (disclaimer: I'm not part of the release team.) Sergei Golovan wrote (26 Jan 2013 06:07:52 GMT) : On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote: Anything like that needs to get tons of testing to ensure it doesn't have unwanted results in squeeze to wheezy upgrades. [...] I didn't try full upgrate from squeeze to wheezy, just these four packages [...]. I doubt this matches the tons of testing Julien feels is needed (and FWIW I concur), so tagging moreinfo. Julien, please retag / decide if I guessed wrong. I think that the proposed 5.45-3 behaves better than 5.45-2 on upgrade. I suggest preparing and proposing a Jenkins dist-upgrade job (either as a patch against an existing appropriate job, or as a new job) to Holger (Cc'd), so that we have an easy way to verify that the Squeeze to Wheezy upgrade is indeed working fine with the proposed change. If you're interested in going this way, then the Jenkins jobs configuration lives in: git://git.debian.org/git/users/holger/jenkins.debian.net.git Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/85li9jh8hc@boum.org
Processed: Re: Bug#698778: preapproval of expect/5.45-3
Processing control commands: tag -1 + moreinfo Bug #698778 [release.debian.org] preapproval of expect/5.45-3 Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 698778: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=698778 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.b698778.13636966093067.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#698778: preapproval of expect/5.45-3
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 13:36:31 +0100, intrigeri wrote: I suggest preparing and proposing a Jenkins dist-upgrade job (either as a patch against an existing appropriate job, or as a new job) to Holger (Cc'd), so that we have an easy way to verify that the Squeeze to Wheezy upgrade is indeed working fine with the proposed change. Does this test random combinations of installed packages? Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#698778: preapproval of expect/5.45-3
Hi, Julien Cristau wrote (19 Mar 2013 18:38:10 GMT) : Does this test random combinations of installed packages? What I suggested does not, but one could imagine and implement a more involved test case. Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/85vc8nfcru@boum.org
Bug#698778: preapproval of expect/5.45-3
Hi again! On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Sergei Golovan sgolo...@nes.ru wrote: expectk has two reverse dependencies in squeeze: exmh (suggests) xsmbrowser (depends). Both are removed from wheezy and sid. Currently, update expect from squeeze (5.44.1.15-4) to wheezy (5.45-2) goes silently, leaving expectk broken (/usr/bin/expectk fails to run with the following message: /usr/bin/expectk: error while loading shared libraries: libexpect.so.5.44.1.15: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory). If exmh is installed it continues working, though I'm not sure if somewhere deep exmh will not try to run no more working expectk. xsmbrowser fails immediately with the same message as expectk (bug #686364). Dist-upgrade to proposed 5.45-3 removes expectk and xsmbrowser (if they are installed). It's a desirable behavior as neither package works with expect 5.45-*. exmh stays and runs. I didn't try full upgrate from squeeze to wheezy, just these four packages (expect, expectk, xambrowser, exmh) in wheezy. I think that the proposed 5.45-3 behaves better than 5.45-2 on upgrade. Should I proceed with upload, or it's better to leave this bug till after wheezy release? Cheers! -- Sergei Golovan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOq2pXHjjSuN2hQ09-CzjD7tSTD5xLodzTXnxY=kypqyerc...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#698778: preapproval of expect/5.45-3
Hi! On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote: Anything like that needs to get tons of testing to ensure it doesn't have unwanted results in squeeze to wheezy upgrades. expectk has two reverse dependencies in squeeze: exmh (suggests) xsmbrowser (depends). Both are removed from wheezy and sid. Currently, update expect from squeeze (5.44.1.15-4) to wheezy (5.45-2) goes silently, leaving expectk broken (/usr/bin/expectk fails to run with the following message: /usr/bin/expectk: error while loading shared libraries: libexpect.so.5.44.1.15: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory). If exmh is installed it continues working, though I'm not sure if somewhere deep exmh will not try to run no more working expectk. xsmbrowser fails immediately with the same message as expectk (bug #686364). Dist-upgrade to proposed 5.45-3 removes expectk and xsmbrowser (if they are installed). It's a desirable behavior as neither package works with expect 5.45-*. exmh stays and runs. I didn't try full upgrate from squeeze to wheezy, just these four packages (expect, expectk, xambrowser, exmh) in wheezy. I think that the proposed 5.45-3 behaves better than 5.45-2 on upgrade. Cheers! -- Sergei Golovan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caoq2pxh64kcouhaj1dlv4es9mq8q8-fr2dg-izogbrhwrtj...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#698778: preapproval of expect/5.45-3
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 08:07:04 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
--- expect-5.45/debian/control
+++ expect-5.45/debian/control
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
Package: expect
Architecture: any
Depends: ${misc:Depends}, ${shlibs:Depends}
+Breaks: expectk ( 5.45)
AFAIK you should use Conflicts if you want to get a package removed.
A versioned Breaks is better suited when you want to force the upgrade
of the broken package but in this case, there's no updated package, so
you should avoid it and favor Conflicts.
Anything like that needs to get tons of testing to ensure it doesn't
have unwanted results in squeeze to wheezy upgrades.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#698778: preapproval of expect/5.45-3
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Hi!
I'd like to upload expect/5.45-3 with the following modification:
I've added 'Breaks: expectk' header because the expectk package does
not exist anymore but the one from squeeze remains (and doesn't work)
after upgrade.
The diff between the current 5.45-2 and upcoming 5.45-3 is attached.
This upload closes bug #686364.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.0
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (100, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 3.5-trunk-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
diff -u expect-5.45/debian/changelog expect-5.45/debian/changelog
--- expect-5.45/debian/changelog
+++ expect-5.45/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+expect (5.45-3) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * Added breaks header to the debian/control file which ensures that the
+no longer existing expectk package is installed (closes: #686364).
+
+ -- Sergei Golovan sgolo...@debian.org Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:31:34 +0400
+
expect (5.45-2) unstable; urgency=low
* Replaced ckalloc() call in exp_clib.c by malloc() because using the
diff -u expect-5.45/debian/control expect-5.45/debian/control
--- expect-5.45/debian/control
+++ expect-5.45/debian/control
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
Package: expect
Architecture: any
Depends: ${misc:Depends}, ${shlibs:Depends}
+Breaks: expectk ( 5.45)
Description: Automates interactive applications
Expect is a tool for automating interactive applications according to a script.
Following the script, Expect knows what can be expected from a program and what
Bug#698778: preapproval of expect/5.45-3
Hi,
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, Sergei Golovan wrote:
+ * Added breaks header to the debian/control file which ensures that the
+no longer existing expectk package is installed (closes: #686364).
s/is installed/gets removed/.
--- expect-5.45/debian/control
+++ expect-5.45/debian/control
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
Package: expect
Architecture: any
Depends: ${misc:Depends}, ${shlibs:Depends}
+Breaks: expectk ( 5.45)
AFAIK you should use Conflicts if you want to get a package removed.
A versioned Breaks is better suited when you want to force the upgrade
of the broken package but in this case, there's no updated package, so
you should avoid it and favor Conflicts.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook:
→ http://debian-handbook.info/get/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130124070704.ga15...@x230-buxy.home.ouaza.com
