On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 08:07:53PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Presumably the reason for this requirement in policy is that without it,
> debootstrap cannot function. That is, debootstrap first unpacks all
> Essential packages, without running any preinst or postinst scripts, and
> *then* runs
On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 04:43:45PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 10:41:57AM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > We can restore lost files in a postinst. For this to work, we must
> > duplicate (e.g. hard link) affected files in the data.tar.
> > Example: #1057220 (systemd-sysv
Thanks for the feedback. Given the replies, I consider that most people
expect upgrades to be performed with apt (or some apt-using tool).
Upgrades using dpkg (directly) are at least partially unsupported. In
more detail:
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 10:41:57AM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> ## Options
On Sat, Dec 23, 2023 at 01:22:48PM +, Richard Lewis wrote:
>
>Perhaps release-notes should suggest to run dpkg --verify after a
>dist-upgrade anyway - i assume it doesnt hurt to do so?
That's a really good suggestion, yes! I don't know why nobody hasn't
thought of this before. :-)
>Happy to
Helmut Grohne writes:
> I incline to agreeing with the scenario you depict. This can reasonably
> happen. I also think that David made a good case for it being unlikely
> to manage oneself into the buggy situation that way. And then the
> consequence is that you lost some possibly important
Hi Matthew,
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 02:42:56PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> On 21/12/2023 09:41, Helmut Grohne wrote:
>
> > Is it ok to call upgrade scenarios failures that cannot be reproduced
> > using apt unsupported until we no longer deal with aliasing?
Let me thank David for clarifying
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 02:42:56PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> On 21/12/2023 09:41, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > Is it ok to call upgrade scenarios failures that cannot be reproduced
> > using apt unsupported until we no longer deal with aliasing?
>
> I incline towards "no"; if an upgrade has
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 03:31:55PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 11:19:48AM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 10:41:57AM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > > Is it ok to call upgrade scenarios failures that cannot be reproduced
> > > using apt unsupported
Am 21.12.23 um 11:50 schrieb Christoph Berg:
Re: Helmut Grohne
Is it ok to call upgrade scenarios failures that cannot be reproduced
using apt unsupported until we no longer deal with aliasing?
If the answer is yes here, we'll close #1058937 (Ben's libnfsidmap1 bug)
with no action calling the
On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 at 15:31:55 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> Do those GUI frontends that work via packagekit or other frameworks
> count as "using apt"?
Managing apt/dpkg packages via packagekit uses libapt-pkg6.0 (via
/usr/lib/*/packagekit-backend/libpk_backend_apt.so). I don't know whether
that's
Hi,
On 21/12/2023 09:41, Helmut Grohne wrote:
Is it ok to call upgrade scenarios failures that cannot be reproduced
using apt unsupported until we no longer deal with aliasing?
I incline towards "no"; if an upgrade has failed part-way (as does
happen), people may then reasonably use dpkg
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 11:19:48AM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 10:41:57AM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > Is it ok to call upgrade scenarios failures that cannot be reproduced
> > using apt unsupported until we no longer deal with aliasing?
>
> I think so, yes. I
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 10:41:57AM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> ## Upgrading using dpkg directly?
>
> We already have quite a number of packages that use Conflicts to prevent
> file loss in upgrades in a very similar way to #1058937 (Ben's
> libnfsidmap1 bug) even in released versions of Debian.
Re: Helmut Grohne
> Is it ok to call upgrade scenarios failures that cannot be reproduced
> using apt unsupported until we no longer deal with aliasing?
>
> If the answer is yes here, we'll close #1058937 (Ben's libnfsidmap1 bug)
> with no action calling the scenario unsupported.
I think we
Hi,
this installment serves a dual purpose. Let me first give an update of
the status quo and then pose a consensus question on how we want to deal
with a particular problem.
I Cc d-release@l.d.o as upgrades are an integral part of releases.
I Cc d-ctte@l.d.o for advisory feedback with
15 matches
Mail list logo
