Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
On 2012-09-18 13:15, Agustin Martin wrote: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 09:53:37AM +0200, Andreas Beckmann wrote: ilithuanian_1.2.1-3 /var/lib/ispell/lietuviu.hash /var/lib/ispell/lietuviu.compat aspell-kk_0.2-1 /var/lib/aspell/kk.compat /var/lib/aspell/kk.rws I guess this is harmless and caused by the way dictionary hashes were autobuilt during postinst. Already reported as #638730 for ispell-lt. [...] Some helper has been added to dictionaries-common snippets to make all this from maintainer scripts, and a number of dicts are already modified to use it and avoid the debsums warnings. Other ispell/aspell dictionaries may still trigger this warning. It would be nice if we could get ilithuanian get fixed now, as it is the last ispell dictionary doing this, while there are about 23 aspell dictionaries which similar problems that will be ignored for now. Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/506e72bd.3050...@abeckmann.de
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
Nicholas Bamber wrote: Moreover as I understand it the version of piuparts that runs these tests is not yet in sid. Surely it is unreasonable to expect people to fix these bugs - in the middle of a freeze no less - without this tool. Doesn't debsums catch it? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120926195703.GA5300@elie.Belkin
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
I think it would be worth asking the release team about this. Fixing them all might well take a while. These bugs were all presumably in squeeze and if there are many of them delaying wheezy doesn't make sense. Moreover as I understand it the version of piuparts that runs these tests is not yet in sid. Surely it is unreasonable to expect people to fix these bugs - in the middle of a freeze no less - without this tool. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50620dde.3080...@periapt.co.uk
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
I demand that Andreas Beckmann may or may not have written... [snip] xine-ui_0.99.7-1 /var/lib/xine/xine.desktop These seem to be some state/registry/... files that are updated during postinst. That and gxine.desktop (at least) are updated then because the list of supported MIME types may vary depending on which xine-lib packages are installed. What should we do with these? Unfortunately I didn't find a policy reference that forbids this ... If you have better ideas concerning these, I'm listening... -- | _ | Darren Salt, using Debian GNU/Linux (and Android) | ( ) | | X | ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML e-mail | / \ | http://www.asciiribbon.org/ Steer clear of incorrect forms of verbs that have snuck in the language. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52d93e9a64%lists...@moreofthesa.me.uk
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
On 23.09.2012 19:21, Darren Salt wrote: I demand that Andreas Beckmann may or may not have written... [snip] xine-ui_0.99.7-1 /var/lib/xine/xine.desktop These seem to be some state/registry/... files that are updated during postinst. That and gxine.desktop (at least) are updated then because the list of supported MIME types may vary depending on which xine-lib packages are installed. What should we do with these? Unfortunately I didn't find a policy reference that forbids this ... If you have better ideas concerning these, I'm listening... you could let the xine-lib packages install corresponding desktop files for the mime-types they support. okular (document viewer) has a similar problem. Depending on which features you enable during configure the list of supported mime types varies. The way okular solves this is to install separate desktop files [1]. If you enable support for format x, it installs a corresponding desktop file. A similar approach should work for xine-lib. HTH, Michael [1] # ls /usr/share/applicatins/kde4/okularApplication_* okularApplication_comicbook.desktop okularApplication_ghostview.desktop okularApplication_plucker.desktop okularApplication_dvi.desktopokularApplication_kimgio.desktop okularApplication_xps.desktop okularApplication_fax.desktopokularApplication_ooo.desktop okularApplication_fb.desktop okularApplication_pdf.desktop -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
On 09/20/2012 12:25 AM, Philipp Kern wrote: I've never seen somebody starting to use conffile when he really meant configuration file. I've never seen it either. But I've seen many instances of the following: - A knowledgeable DD write about conffiles - a newbie writing yes but my configuration files - Then the DD writing I really meant conffiles, not configuration file As Jakub wrote: search for conffiles in the -mentors list, and I guess you'll see. So this *is* a confusing word which I don't like. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/505c1eeb.6090...@debian.org
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
On 2012-09-18 09:53, Andreas Beckmann wrote: mirror_2.9-62 /usr/share/doc/mirror/mirror.txt.gz /usr/share/doc/mirror/html/mirror-ref.html /usr/share/mirror/mirror.pl /usr/share/mirror/dateconv.pl /usr/share/mirror/lchat.pl /usr/share/mirror/lsparse.pl /usr/share/mirror/ftp.pl /usr/bin/do_unlinks /usr/bin/mirror-master /usr/bin/pkgs_to_mmin The mirror package applies some patches during postinst to conform with the license. Wouldn't it be better to ship the source in /usr/share/mirror/source/, copy these to /var/lib/mirror/ during postinst and apply the patch there and ship symlinks to /var/lib/mirror/* in /usr/bin, /usr/share/mirror? fsl_4.1.9-6 /usr/share/fsl/4.1/tcl/tclIndex smlnj-runtime_110.74-1 /usr/lib/smlnj/lib/pathconfig swi-prolog-nox_5.10.4-3 /usr/lib/swi-prolog/library/INDEX.pl xine-ui_0.99.7-1 /var/lib/xine/xine.desktop These seem to be some state/registry/... files that are updated during postinst. What should we do with these? Unfortunately I didn't find a policy reference that forbids this ... Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/505c5dfa.9060...@abeckmann.de
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
* Andreas Beckmann deb...@abeckmann.de, 2012-09-21, 14:30: mirror_2.9-62 /usr/share/doc/mirror/mirror.txt.gz /usr/share/doc/mirror/html/mirror-ref.html /usr/share/mirror/mirror.pl /usr/share/mirror/dateconv.pl /usr/share/mirror/lchat.pl /usr/share/mirror/lsparse.pl /usr/share/mirror/ftp.pl /usr/bin/do_unlinks /usr/bin/mirror-master /usr/bin/pkgs_to_mmin The mirror package applies some patches during postinst to conform with the license. Really? I didn't read the license, but either it's not neccessary, or it's a DFSG§4 violation: “The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code.” -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120921125714.ga...@jwilk.net
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
Jakub Wilk jw...@debian.org writes: Really? I didn't read the license, but either it's not neccessary, or it's a DFSG§4 violation: “The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code.” I'm not sure why mirror is still doing this, given the correspondence recorded in the mirror copyright file which says that patching in the Debian *.diff.gz file is perfectly fine. The license is not particularly well-written, but given the clarifying correspondence, the intent appears to be to allow distributing of the pristine source plus patch files. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87vcf7b8fu@windlord.stanford.edu
packages with E: md5sum-mismatch in the archive (was: Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files)
On 2012-09-18 09:30, Andreas Beckmann wrote: Just to give a short impression what we can find here: guile-1.6-dev_1.6.8-10.1 /usr/lib/libguile-ltdl.la /usr/lib/libguile.la /usr/lib/libguile-srfi-srfi-13-14-v-1.la /usr/lib/libguile-srfi-srfi-4-v-1.la /usr/lib/libguilereadline-v-12.la Actually, we have lintian errors on the packages in the archive: E: guile-1.6-libs: md5sum-mismatch usr/lib/libguile-srfi-srfi-4-v-1.la E: guile-1.6-libs: md5sum-mismatch usr/lib/libguile-srfi-srfi-13-14-v-1.la E: guile-1.6-libs: md5sum-mismatch usr/lib/libguilereadline-v-12.la E: guile-1.6-dev: md5sum-mismatch usr/lib/libguile-ltdl.la E: guile-1.6-dev: md5sum-mismatch usr/lib/libguile.la I tried rebuilding guile-1.6 in a clean sid pbuilder chroot on amd64 and could not reproduce the error. So a binNMU might be sufficient to fix this. And it's the md5sum that is wrong, the .la files don't change after the rebuild. But the more important question is: how can it happen that such broken packages enter the archive? Shouldn't md5sum-mismatch be in ftp-master-auto-reject.profile? Can someone do a lintian check for just this tag on the whole archive, all architectures, all releases? That's just *.deb on a full mirror :-) And ports should be checked, too. Andreas sha256 sums from the bad .debs: f6530f30619aa2451e88f3ea245824ff779d41e24cb7e3eeacd6b83c7dbfea00 /var/cache/apt/archives/guile-1.6-dev_1.6.8-10.1_amd64.deb c023046e8ac1180643b42f598b2f0a0aa90e5be50f878fe69fae2d07b5815cb6 /var/cache/apt/archives/guile-1.6-libs_1.6.8-10.1_amd64.deb 22e8a4dc75c6b57bcfd8b0c365a48eb045b8f3317aa74cd00670c7af085f3acb /var/cache/apt/archives/guile-1.6_1.6.8-10.1_amd64.deb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/505b49eb.5080...@abeckmann.de
mass bug filing about packages manipulating conffiles (policy 10.7.3) (was: Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files)
Hi, here is my proposed bug template for reporting conffile manipulation. That will cover the majority of these bugs. Non-conffile manipulation may need some more analysis and discussion. If noone objects, I'll go ahead with filing these bugs with Severity: serious since this is a violation of a must directive. Piuparts will find these problems in squeeze as well and in order to have piuparts-analyze do its job (marking logs from failed tests as bugged), I may have to mark them as found in the squeeze version, too. I do not expect this qualifies for updating the packages in squeeze, though. Therefore I'm asking the Release Team for permission to tag them as squeeze-ignore immediately. = 8 = To: sub...@bugs.debian.org Subject: modifies conffiles (policy 10.7.3): Package: Version: Severity: serious User: debian...@lists.debian.org Usertags: piuparts Hi, during a test with piuparts I noticed your package modifies conffiles. This is forbidden by the policy, see http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#s-config-files 10.7.3: [...] The easy way to achieve this behavior is to make the configuration file a conffile. [...] This implies that the default version will be part of the package distribution, and must not be modified by the maintainer scripts during installation (or at any other time). Note that once a package ships a modified version of that conffile, dpkg will prompt the user for an action how to handle the upgrade of this modified conffile (that was not modified by the user). Further in 10.7.3: [...] must not ask unnecessary questions (particularly during upgrades) [...] If a configuration file is customized by a maintainer script after having asked some debconf questions, it may not be marked as a conffile. Instead a template could be installed in /usr/share and used by the postinst script to fill in the custom values and create (or update) the configuration file (preserving any user modifications!). This file must be removed during postrm purge. ucf(1) may help with these tasks. See also http://wiki.debian.org/DpkgConffileHandling In https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/09/msg00412.html and followups it has been agreed that these bugs are to be filed with severity serious. debsums reports modification of the following files: cheers, = 8 = Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/505977d2.3030...@abeckmann.de
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating conffiles (policy 10.7.3) (was: Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files)
Hi Andreas, thanks for your work on this, again! :-) On Mittwoch, 19. September 2012, Andreas Beckmann wrote: = 8 = To: sub...@bugs.debian.org Subject: modifies conffiles (policy 10.7.3): I miss one sentence in this mail template: Please see the attached log for details. :-) cheers, Holger -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201209190952.58081.hol...@layer-acht.org
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
On 09/17/2012 10:03 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Sep 17, Bernd Zeimetzbe...@bzed.de wrote: To cite http://release.debian.org/wheezy/rc_policy.txt: Packages' /etc/default scripts must be treated as configuration files. Which are not the same things as conffiles. I of course agree with Marco. BTW, conffiles is a pretty bad name. It's confusing, as you can see once more. I thought about calling it dpkg-conffiles which has the advantage of underlying that we leave the handling of the file to the responsibility of dpkg, keeps the same old conffiles name. But people will continue to use the older short version of it, so... Anyone with a better idea? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5059c770.9050...@debian.org
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating conffiles (policy 10.7.3) (was: Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files)
On 19.09.2012 08:44, Andreas Beckmann wrote: If noone objects, I'll go ahead with filing these bugs with Severity: serious since this is a violation of a must directive. Do we have an idea of how many such bugs there are affecting wheezy currently? Apologies if that was answered earlier in the -devel thread, I couldn't see it from a browse through. Piuparts will find these problems in squeeze as well and in order to have piuparts-analyze do its job (marking logs from failed tests as bugged), I may have to mark them as found in the squeeze version, too. I do not expect this qualifies for updating the packages in squeeze, though. Therefore I'm asking the Release Team for permission to tag them as squeeze-ignore immediately. Ack on the squeeze-ignore; thanks. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/66ac4d7c5f53974ea9beb86fa4194...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
On 17/09/2012 13:10, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: On 09/17/2012 12:49 PM, Philipp Kern wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:59:44AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: On 09/17/2012 11:56 AM, Andreas Beckmann wrote: Modifying conffiles is forbidden by policy 10.7.3 Well, conffiles are sometimes modified due to the result of asking questions with debconf - at least the md5sum might change, although the content stays the same with debconf priority=high. Are you sure you didn't find such things? If you modify conffiles through debconf config scripts, your package is RC buggy. See also [1]. So we shall drop things like automatic configuration of postfix? It actually even asks the user if the config file should be modified. That is just one example of a lot others that jump into my mind. This just means that the concept of conffile is dying. When trying my hand at some automatic /etc management, I discovered that many files under /etc are not conffiles (and not in dpkg managed-files) because of this rule. And this means that automatic management is hard, because they are generated by scripts, and as such, not easy to store, compare to default, etc. Sincerly, -- Jean-Christophe Dubacq signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
]] Jean-Christophe Dubacq And this means that automatic management is hard, because they are generated by scripts, and as such, not easy to store, compare to default, etc. «default» doesn't really make any sense when it's a template that's filled in by debconf/maintainer scripts. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/871uhyhw1t@qurzaw.varnish-software.com
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
On 12-09-19 at 05:27pm, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: ]] Jean-Christophe Dubacq And this means that automatic management is hard, because they are generated by scripts, and as such, not easy to store, compare to default, etc. «default» doesn't really make any sense when it's a template that's filled in by debconf/maintainer scripts. In most cases default means what is consistently resolved when installing the package non-interactively. ...but for packages whose postinst scripts actually taking MAC address, moon phase or other out-of-band data into account, you are right. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 09:24:00PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: [ conffiles being confusing ] Anyone with a better idea? It's in NM 101 and it's only used as a shorthand if dpkg conffiles are meant. That others are unable to parse it, well, they could look it up on the internets and find buxy's description. I've never seen somebody starting to use conffile when he really meant configuration file. Kind regards Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
* Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org, 2012-09-19, 18:25: I've never seen somebody starting to use conffile when he really meant configuration file. Obviously you don't hang out at #debian-mentors. ;) -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120919163119.ga2...@jwilk.net
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
On 19/09/2012 17:52, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On 12-09-19 at 05:27pm, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: ]] Jean-Christophe Dubacq And this means that automatic management is hard, because they are generated by scripts, and as such, not easy to store, compare to default, etc. «default» doesn't really make any sense when it's a template that's filled in by debconf/maintainer scripts. In most cases default means what is consistently resolved when installing the package non-interactively. ...but for packages whose postinst scripts actually taking MAC address, moon phase or other out-of-band data into account, you are right. What one wants usually is all manually entered modifications. So, the result of the postinst script in non-interactive mode is exactly what I want (to be able to diff against). Sincerly, -- Jean-Christophe Dubacq signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
Just to give a short impression what we can find here: uim-canna_1:1.8.1-2, uim-prime_1:1.8.1-2 /etc/uim/installed-modules.scm /etc/uim/loader.scm mono-xsp2_2.10-2.1 /etc/default/mono-xsp2 mirror_2.9-62 /usr/share/doc/mirror/mirror.txt.gz /usr/share/doc/mirror/html/mirror-ref.html /usr/share/mirror/mirror.pl /usr/share/mirror/dateconv.pl /usr/share/mirror/lchat.pl /usr/share/mirror/lsparse.pl /usr/share/mirror/ftp.pl /usr/bin/do_unlinks /usr/bin/mirror-master /usr/bin/pkgs_to_mmin mcron_1.0.6-1+b1 /usr/share/doc/sendmail-base/buildinfo.gz /usr/share/doc/sendmail-cf/buildinfo.gz /usr/share/doc/sensible-mda/buildinfo.gz jackd2_1.9.8~dfsg.4+20120529git007cdc37-4 debsums: missing file /etc/security/limits.d/audio.conf (from jackd2 package) guile-1.6-dev_1.6.8-10.1 /usr/lib/libguile-ltdl.la /usr/lib/libguile.la /usr/lib/libguile-srfi-srfi-13-14-v-1.la /usr/lib/libguile-srfi-srfi-4-v-1.la /usr/lib/libguilereadline-v-12.la gcl_2.6.7-103 /etc/default/gcl fprobe_1.1-7.2 /etc/default/fprobe bobot++_1:1.97-10.4 /usr/lib/libguile-srfi-srfi-13-14-v-1.la /usr/lib/libguile-srfi-srfi-4-v-1.la /usr/lib/libguilereadline-v-12.la bacula-director-sqlite3_5.2.6+dfsg-3 /etc/bacula/scripts/delete_catalog_backup -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50582329.3040...@abeckmann.de
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
On 2012-09-18 09:30, Andreas Beckmann wrote: Just to give a short impression what we can find here: and some more bts, that's output from debsums -a -c, so the files listed have a md5sum mismatch (or are missing if noted) ilithuanian_1.2.1-3 /var/lib/ispell/lietuviu.hash /var/lib/ispell/lietuviu.compat aspell-kk_0.2-1 /var/lib/aspell/kk.compat /var/lib/aspell/kk.rws nuauth-utils_2.4.3-2.1 debsums: missing file /usr/share/nuauth/nuauth.conf (from nuauth package) debsums: missing file /usr/share/nuauth/nuauth.d/nuauth_authtype.conf (from nuauth package) debsums: missing file /usr/share/nuauth/nuauth.d/nuauth_krb5.conf (from nuauth package) debsums: missing file /usr/share/nuauth/nuauth.d/nuauth_ldap.conf (from nuauth package) debsums: missing file /usr/share/nuauth/nuauth.d/nuauth_mark.conf (from nuauth package) debsums: missing file /usr/share/nuauth/nuauth.d/nuauth_mysql.conf (from nuauth package) debsums: missing file /usr/share/nuauth/nuauth.d/nuauth_pgsql.conf (from nuauth package) debsums: missing file /usr/share/nuauth/nuauth.d/nuauth_tls.conf (from nuauth package) debsums: missing file /usr/share/nuauth/nuauth.d/nuauth_tuning.conf (from nuauth package) wims_4.04-2 debsums: missing file /var/lib/wims/log/unsecure (from wims package) /var/lib/wims/public_html/gifs/symbols/20/_Arrow-h.gif /var/lib/wims/public_html/gifs/symbols/20/_Arrow-v.gif /var/lib/wims/public_html/gifs/symbols/20/_ArrowR-h.gif /var/lib/wims/public_html/gifs/symbols/20/_ArrowR-v.gif ... /var/lib/wims/public_html/gifs/symbols/20/xnor-v.gif /var/lib/wims/public_html/gifs/symbols/20/xnorR-h.gif /var/lib/wims/public_html/gifs/symbols/20/xnorR-v.gif /var/lib/wims/public_html/themes/default/supervisor.phtml /var/lib/wims/public_html/themes/default/visitor.phtml /var/lib/wims/public_html/themes/standard/supervisor.phtml /var/lib/wims/public_html/themes/standard/visitor.phtml fsl_4.1.9-6 /usr/share/fsl/4.1/tcl/tclIndex zangband_1:2.7.5pre1-4 debsums: missing file /var/games/zangband/data/misc.raw (from zangband package) debsums: missing file /var/games/zangband/data/k_info.raw (from zangband package) debsums: missing file /var/games/zangband/data/v_info.raw (from zangband package) debsums: missing file /var/games/zangband/data/f_info.raw (from zangband package) debsums: missing file /var/games/zangband/data/e_info.raw (from zangband package) debsums: missing file /var/games/zangband/data/r_info.raw (from zangband package) debsums: missing file /var/games/zangband/data/a_info.raw (from zangband package) uim-canna_1:1.8.1-2, uim-prime_1:1.8.1-2 /etc/uim/installed-modules.scm /etc/uim/loader.scm mono-xsp2_2.10-2.1 /etc/default/mono-xsp2 mirror_2.9-62 /usr/share/doc/mirror/mirror.txt.gz /usr/share/doc/mirror/html/mirror-ref.html /usr/share/mirror/mirror.pl /usr/share/mirror/dateconv.pl /usr/share/mirror/lchat.pl /usr/share/mirror/lsparse.pl /usr/share/mirror/ftp.pl /usr/bin/do_unlinks /usr/bin/mirror-master /usr/bin/pkgs_to_mmin mcron_1.0.6-1+b1 /usr/share/doc/sendmail-base/buildinfo.gz /usr/share/doc/sendmail-cf/buildinfo.gz /usr/share/doc/sensible-mda/buildinfo.gz jackd2_1.9.8~dfsg.4+20120529git007cdc37-4 debsums: missing file /etc/security/limits.d/audio.conf (from jackd2 package) guile-1.6-dev_1.6.8-10.1 /usr/lib/libguile-ltdl.la /usr/lib/libguile.la /usr/lib/libguile-srfi-srfi-13-14-v-1.la /usr/lib/libguile-srfi-srfi-4-v-1.la /usr/lib/libguilereadline-v-12.la gcl_2.6.7-103 /etc/default/gcl fprobe_1.1-7.2 /etc/default/fprobe bobot++_1:1.97-10.4 /usr/lib/libguile-srfi-srfi-13-14-v-1.la /usr/lib/libguile-srfi-srfi-4-v-1.la /usr/lib/libguilereadline-v-12.la bacula-director-sqlite3_5.2.6+dfsg-3 /etc/bacula/scripts/delete_catalog_backup -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50582881.6090...@abeckmann.de
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
Andreas Beckmann writes (mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files): So far I have seen these problems: * package modifies a conffile it ships * package modifies a non-conffile it ships * package deletes a (conf)file it ships * (maybe all these bad things on files shipped by other packages, too, but I didn't analyze the logs and packages in detail, yet) and not only as a single occurrence :-( I'm not surprised. What's the appropriate severity for these bugs? I would assume serious. AIUI that is the correct answer according to the current rules. I think it would be worth asking the release team about this. Fixing them all might well take a while. These bugs were all presumably in squeeze and if there are many of them delaying wheezy doesn't make sense. Thanks, Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20568.20144.886718.792...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 09:53:37AM +0200, Andreas Beckmann wrote: On 2012-09-18 09:30, Andreas Beckmann wrote: Just to give a short impression what we can find here: and some more bts, that's output from debsums -a -c, so the files listed have a md5sum mismatch (or are missing if noted) ilithuanian_1.2.1-3 /var/lib/ispell/lietuviu.hash /var/lib/ispell/lietuviu.compat aspell-kk_0.2-1 /var/lib/aspell/kk.compat /var/lib/aspell/kk.rws I guess this is harmless and caused by the way dictionary hashes were autobuilt during postinst. Already reported as #638730 for ispell-lt. Old implementation used a 'touched' empty file as placeholder to help dpkg remove files on package removal. This however triggers some debsums differences. Not something to worry about, is stuff shipped under /var and original md5sum was that of an empty file (so it is really a placeholder), but still noisy. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/03/threads.html#00038 Some helper has been added to dictionaries-common snippets to make all this from maintainer scripts, and a number of dicts are already modified to use it and avoid the debsums warnings. Other ispell/aspell dictionaries may still trigger this warning. Regards, -- Agustin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120918111501.ga10...@agmartin.aq.upm.es
mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
Hi, another recent addition to piuparts is running debsums to see whether shipped files are being incorrectly modified. This feature is in a experimental stage and not available in the git repository, yet. So far I have seen these problems: * package modifies a conffile it ships * package modifies a non-conffile it ships * package deletes a (conf)file it ships * (maybe all these bad things on files shipped by other packages, too, but I didn't analyze the logs and packages in detail, yet) and not only as a single occurrence :-( What's the appropriate severity for these bugs? I would assume serious. Modifying conffiles is forbidden by policy 10.7.3 I'm not sure about the other cases, but that should be forbidden as well. Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5056f3c5.7040...@abeckmann.de
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
On 09/17/2012 11:56 AM, Andreas Beckmann wrote: Modifying conffiles is forbidden by policy 10.7.3 Well, conffiles are sometimes modified due to the result of asking questions with debconf - at least the md5sum might change, although the content stays the same with debconf priority=high. Are you sure you didn't find such things? Cheers, Bernd -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5056f490.8080...@bzed.de
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:59:44AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: On 09/17/2012 11:56 AM, Andreas Beckmann wrote: Modifying conffiles is forbidden by policy 10.7.3 Well, conffiles are sometimes modified due to the result of asking questions with debconf - at least the md5sum might change, although the content stays the same with debconf priority=high. Are you sure you didn't find such things? If you modify conffiles through debconf config scripts, your package is RC buggy. See also [1]. Kind regards Philipp Kern [1] http://release.debian.org/wheezy/rc_policy.txt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120917104927.ga13...@hub.kern.lc
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
On 09/17/2012 12:49 PM, Philipp Kern wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:59:44AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: On 09/17/2012 11:56 AM, Andreas Beckmann wrote: Modifying conffiles is forbidden by policy 10.7.3 Well, conffiles are sometimes modified due to the result of asking questions with debconf - at least the md5sum might change, although the content stays the same with debconf priority=high. Are you sure you didn't find such things? If you modify conffiles through debconf config scripts, your package is RC buggy. See also [1]. So we shall drop things like automatic configuration of postfix? It actually even asks the user if the config file should be modified. That is just one example of a lot others that jump into my mind. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5057050a.5030...@bzed.de
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
On Sep 17, Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de wrote:
So we shall drop things like automatic configuration of postfix? It
actually even asks the user if the config file should be modified. That
is just one example of a lot others that jump into my mind.
/etc/postfix/{main,master}.cf are not conffiles, so there is nothing
wrong about the postfix package.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
On 2012-09-17 13:10, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: So we shall drop things like automatic configuration of postfix? It actually even asks the user if the config file should be modified. That is just one example of a lot others that jump into my mind. It's perfectly fine to do this on configuration files that are not conffiles. http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#s-config-files Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50570725.6060...@abeckmann.de
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
On 09/17/2012 01:18 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 17, Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de wrote:
So we shall drop things like automatic configuration of postfix? It
actually even asks the user if the config file should be modified. That
is just one example of a lot others that jump into my mind.
/etc/postfix/{main,master}.cf are not conffiles, so there is nothing
wrong about the postfix package.
Oh well yes, bad example. We still have a lot of packages which modify
/etc/default/* with debconf. Portmap, sysstat, ... - and they are
supposed to be conffiles - which is rather annoying as the default
snippets not being written by deconf would mean that you have to store
the debconf generated stuff somewhere else, and source it...
Additionally to the snipped in /etc/default. Yet another waste of
developer time.
--
Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer
http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50570883.7040...@bzed.de
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 01:24:51PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: Oh well yes, bad example. We still have a lot of packages which modify /etc/default/* with debconf. Portmap, sysstat, ... - and they are supposed to be conffiles - [...] Why are they supposed to be conffiles? It's fine for them to be not. (Which is true, e.g., for portmap.) Kind regards Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120917115757.ga14...@hub.kern.lc
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
On 09/17/2012 05:56 PM, Andreas Beckmann wrote: Hi, another recent addition to piuparts is running debsums to see whether shipped files are being incorrectly modified. This feature is in a experimental stage and not available in the git repository, yet. So far I have seen these problems: * package modifies a conffile it ships * package modifies a non-conffile it ships * package deletes a (conf)file it ships Very nice. Did you run this archive wide? Can I see your log file? Cheers, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5057283b.50...@debian.org
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
On 09/17/2012 01:57 PM, Philipp Kern wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 01:24:51PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: Oh well yes, bad example. We still have a lot of packages which modify /etc/default/* with debconf. Portmap, sysstat, ... - and they are supposed to be conffiles - [...] Why are they supposed to be conffiles? It's fine for them to be not. (Which is true, e.g., for portmap.) To cite http://release.debian.org/wheezy/rc_policy.txt: Packages' /etc/default scripts must be treated as configuration files. Kind regards Philipp Kern -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50572d41.9040...@bzed.de
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
On Sep 17, Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de wrote: To cite http://release.debian.org/wheezy/rc_policy.txt: Packages' /etc/default scripts must be treated as configuration files. Which are not the same things as conffiles. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 13:10:02 +0200 Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de wrote: On 09/17/2012 12:49 PM, Philipp Kern wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:59:44AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: On 09/17/2012 11:56 AM, Andreas Beckmann wrote: Modifying conffiles is forbidden by policy 10.7.3 Well, conffiles are sometimes modified due to the result of asking questions with debconf - at least the md5sum might change, although the content stays the same with debconf priority=high. Are you sure you didn't find such things? If you modify conffiles through debconf config scripts, your package is RC buggy. See also [1]. So we shall drop things like automatic configuration of postfix? It actually even asks the user if the config file should be modified. That is just one example of a lot others that jump into my mind. Simple solution I use is to have a conffile which is a foo.conf.sample and not package foo.conf which is generated in the postinst from the debconf question and it is this file which is used by the package, not the .sample. Otherwise, there's little point having debconf. The point is not to modify / delete a file listed under dpkg -s or dpkg -L but to create a new file based on content read from those files. -- Neil Williams = http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpkms3wMddZT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mass bug filing about packages manipulating/deleting shipped files
On 2012-09-17 15:40, Thomas Goirand wrote: Very nice. Did you run this archive wide? Archive wide test is currently running in my local piuparts instance. This may still take some time until all packages have been retested. Can I see your log file? Unfortunately my piuparts instance is not publicly available :-( Andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/505768ff.1010...@abeckmann.de
