Monday 15 September 2008 skrev Steve Langasek: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 06:51:15AM -0000, Flemming Bjerke wrote: > > Sorry, you are right. But, I found it very offensive that someone > > (anonymously) deliberately made a bug in order to trouble me, having the > > explicit purpose of getting me to mob a developer. > > Well, this is false. Now, I see you are right.
> No one deliberately added a bug, and the bug here is > not the one you've described. Indeed, it is the one I have described: I noticed two things from ucf: 1. # uncomment after a while to begin nagging # maintainers to fix their scripts. (according dictionary,com does "nag" mean: - to annoy by persistent faultfinding, complaints, or demands. - to keep in a state of troubled awareness or anxiety, as a recurrent pain or problem) In my view, "nagging" is not a nice thing to do. 2. If the following condition is fulfilled: if [ "$DEBCONF_ALREADY_RUNNING" ] && [ "$DEBCONF_OK" = NO ]; then Then, ucf returns an error because the following gives an error: ============== <<END *** WARNING: ucf was run from a maintainer script that uses debconf, but the script did not pass --debconf-ok to ucf. The maintainer script should be fixed to not stop debconf before calling ucf, and pass it this parameter. For now, ucf will revert to using old-style, non-debconf prompting. Ugh! Please inform the package maintainer about this problem. END =============== >From 1. and 2. I inferred that now the quoted lines had been uncommented in order to nag the developer - which probably is true. Moreover, it IS a bug, because the script returns an error under one of the conditions foreseen in script. However, now I see what must have happened. On my PC, I have two systems: An old ubuntustudio and a kubuntu-hardy. On the kubuntu hardy all the relevant text is commented. On the ubuntu-studio the END-text quoted above is not commented (see attachment), BUT the cat command is still commented. Thus, the person who removed the #'s, forgot to remove it from the line # cat \ and thus made a bug. That is, to nag the developer, he made a bug. But, it was not deliberate that it became a bug that may obstruct upgrade. It should just have been a comment written in the prompt during installation. > The bug is that HERE docs don't fail > gracefully in the event of disk space problems, as you must have had when > upgrading, As I wrote, I DID check if there was enough diskspace, and there was app. 1GB on sdb1 and 3 GB on sdb3! (That should suffice for upgrade samba + kubuntu-desktop: app. 20 MB.) I was quite confused over this. I haven't got into details with that I tried to remove samba as it couldn't be installed. This involved uninstalling kubuntu-desktop, which I did, too. Then, I re-installed kubuntu-desktop and (unfortunately) samba, too. Again samba made an error, that persisted till I commented the quoted END-text. Then, the errors disappeared, and samba was installed. In short, it looks like the disk-full-message came BECAUSE of the bug. Yes, I know it sounds strange, but ... . > and this wasn't taken into account when commenting out the 'cat' > command (probably because it was completely unforeseen by the author of ucf > - this was a surprising error message that I had never seen before, > either). > > There's also a second bug here, which is that this line should never even > be reached because samba-common is *not* calling ucf incorrectly; it is > passing the --debconf-ok argument, but ucf does this check before it > reaches the argument parsing block. Yes. Unfortunately, I don't know how to reproduce the bug. Probably the condition is not fulfilled any more: if [ "$DEBCONF_ALREADY_RUNNING" ] && [ "$DEBCONF_OK" = NO ] Even if I first run: aptitude purge samba-common sambe-client Perhaps, it is only when udgrading samba that the condition may be fulfilled. This probably also explains why (most?) others don't experience the problem. > > Fixing the latter bug would resolve the former in almost all cases anyway; > and if the user's disk is full, this is likely the least severe bug one > could possibly run into during an upgrade as a result. But, it wasn't full. -- Flemming Bjerke Hyldebjerg 67 DK-4330 Hvalsø Phone: +45 46928846 Mobile: +45 22120366 ** Attachment added: "ucf" http://launchpadlibrarian.net/17696149/ucf -- Bug in /usr/bin/ucf when upgrading Hardy https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/268364 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
