On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 23:32:14 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 11:15:41 +0200 David Kalnischkies wrote:
So (just for the record), after discussing this a bit at DebConf it seems
like
we could apply the attached patch to APT, which is hopefully fine for
everyone.
Hi
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Serafeim Zanikolas s...@debian.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:52:49PM +0100, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 08:15:32PM +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
On 17 March 2013 19:56, Serafeim Zanikolas s...@debian.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17,
On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 11:15:41 +0200 David Kalnischkies wrote:
So (just for the record), after discussing this a bit at DebConf it seems like
we could apply the attached patch to APT, which is hopefully fine for
everyone.
Hi David,
thanks a lot for the updated patch.
I am compiling the
Daniel, David,
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:52:49PM +0100, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 08:15:32PM +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
On 17 March 2013 19:56, Serafeim Zanikolas s...@debian.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 02:14:50PM +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
The data
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:03:28 +0100 Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
[...]
I think technical minded users would appreciate the same level of options
currently provided by apt-get ran as root, ie. to be able to upgrade selected
RC-buggy packages while pinning others.
To me, it is of paramount
On 19 March 2013 07:07, Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 17:34:03 +0800 Daniel Hartwig wrote:
What follows is a somewhat
verbose justification and answer to some of your previous questions.
Responses should go to #628996 only, please.
Excluding your address
Hi guys,
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:07:20AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 17:34:03 +0800 Daniel Hartwig wrote:
[...]
On 17 March 2013 16:17, Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org wrote:
[..]
ยท -n, --force-no Assumes that you select no for all questions.
This
Hi Daniel,
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 05:34:03PM +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
Control: reopen 628996
Control: retitle 628996 apt-listbugs: please use debconf
#Control: tags 628996 - moreinfo
On 17 March 2013 16:17, Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 10:41:52
On 18 March 2013 18:56, Serafeim Zanikolas s...@debian.org wrote:
No doubt the current behaviour of noop is not doing apt-listbugs justice.
I agree that debconf is generally the best way to handle a situation where
terminal interaction may or may not be possible.
But as far as I understand,
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 17:34:03 +0800 Daniel Hartwig wrote:
[...]
On 17 March 2013 16:17, Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 10:41:52 +0800 Daniel Hartwig wrote:
[...]
Debconf may provide a suitable interface there
Please see the bug log of #628996 for
On 17 March 2013 06:56, Serafeim Zanikolas s...@debian.org wrote:
Hi Francesco,
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 11:25:36PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote [edited]:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:05:09 +0100 David Kalnischkies wrote:
[..]
Using a hook-defined fifoname rather than a random fifoname should be
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 10:41:52 +0800 Daniel Hartwig wrote:
[...]
Debconf may provide a suitable interface there
Please see the bug log of #628996 for more details about a possible
Debconf frontend and the related difficulties...
--
http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
Control: reopen 628996
Control: retitle 628996 apt-listbugs: please use debconf
#Control: tags 628996 - moreinfo
On 17 March 2013 16:17, Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 10:41:52 +0800 Daniel Hartwig wrote:
[...]
Debconf may provide a suitable interface
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:36:22AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 00:07:21 +0100 Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
Do you agree then that adding the fifo feature to apt and adapting
apt-listbugs accordingly is not needed nor does it suffice for fixing
#662983?
No, I don't
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 02:14:50PM +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
On 17 March 2013 06:56, Serafeim Zanikolas s...@debian.org wrote:
Hi Francesco,
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 11:25:36PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote [edited]:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:05:09 +0100 David Kalnischkies wrote:
[..]
On 17 March 2013 19:56, Serafeim Zanikolas s...@debian.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 02:14:50PM +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
The data can be passed through an open fd, similar to dpkg --status-fd
argument. Then there are no issues due to filesystems global
namespace and it removes the fs
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 08:15:32PM +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
On 17 March 2013 19:56, Serafeim Zanikolas s...@debian.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 02:14:50PM +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
The data can be passed through an open fd, similar to dpkg --status-fd
argument. Then there are
Hi David Francesco,
Thanks for the quick feedback.
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 12:05:09PM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote [edited]:
Using a hook-defined fifoname rather than a random fifoname should be
okay as the later isn't more secure than the former (if an attacker has
root rights to write
On 16 March 2013 22:07, Serafeim Zanikolas s...@debian.org wrote:
This new apt feature opens the way for #671728, but really fixing the latter
would also require a non-interactive apt-listbugs frontend (to be used for
programmatic invocation).
Right. Apt-listbugs is effectively called in the
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 10:32:40PM +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
Right. Apt-listbugs is effectively called in the same context as
maintainer scripts, and those are not guaranteed to have an
interactive shell. The program must be smart enough to detect this
and do the right thing (I'm not sure
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:04:38 +0100 Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
[...]
I'm not sure any more that using a fifo instead of stdin is
needed for a programmatic frontend. After all, the tracebacks in #662983
suggest that the failure occurs only when apt-listbugs tries to access
/dev/tty, at which
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:05:09 +0100 David Kalnischkies wrote:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Serafeim Zanikolas s...@debian.org wrote:
The attached patch enables apt to pass Pre-Install-Pkgs hook data via a
fifo,
instead of via stdin (which remains the default, of course).
Unlike the
Hi Francesco,
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 11:25:36PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote [edited]:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:05:09 +0100 David Kalnischkies wrote:
[..]
Using a hook-defined fifoname rather than a random fifoname should be
okay as the later isn't more secure than the former (if an attacker
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 11:25:18PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:04:38 +0100 Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
[...]
I'm not sure any more that using a fifo instead of stdin is
needed for a programmatic frontend. After all, the tracebacks in #662983
suggest that the failure
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 00:07:21 +0100 Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 11:25:18PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:04:38 +0100 Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:
[...]
I'm not sure any more that using a fifo instead of stdin is
needed for a programmatic
On 16 March 2013 23:04, Serafeim Zanikolas s...@debian.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 10:32:40PM +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
Right. Apt-listbugs is effectively called in the same context as
maintainer scripts, and those are not guaranteed to have an
interactive shell. The program must
On 17 March 2013 09:18, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 March 2013 23:04, Serafeim Zanikolas s...@debian.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 10:32:40PM +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
Right. Apt-listbugs is effectively called in the same context as
maintainer scripts, and those are
tag 671726 +patch
thanks
Hi,
The attached patch enables apt to pass Pre-Install-Pkgs hook data via a fifo,
instead of via stdin (which remains the default, of course).
Unlike the proposal in the initial bug report, the fifo filename is not
randomised, but instead declared via the following
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Serafeim Zanikolas s...@debian.org wrote:
The attached patch enables apt to pass Pre-Install-Pkgs hook data via a fifo,
instead of via stdin (which remains the default, of course).
Unlike the proposal in the initial bug report, the fifo filename is not
Package: apt
Version: 0.8.15.10
Severity: wishlist
Dear APT deity team,
I am one of the co-maintainers of the apt-listbugs package.
Currently, apt-listbugs is automatically invoked by apt-get and aptitude
(and other compatible package managers) thanks to the following
Pre-Install-Pkgs hook:
$
30 matches
Mail list logo
