Re: Problem with btrfs-progs package
Hi again Dimitri!
>I have accepted some, but not all patches from him. I disagree with
>some of them, which i have clearly stated before =)
>So far, I did not request nor require assistants with btrfs-tools
>package maintenance in the distribution.
ok thanks for letting me know!
I hope you will continue to consider Nicholas patches
e.g.
#824895 [btrfs-progs] [PATCH] warn at run-time against likely data loss when
#824896 [btrfs-progs] [PATCH] fix serious errors in debian/copyright
>Old name is provided via an empty transitional package. At least in
>unstable, I don't know what's the policy or convention for backports.
no change backports don't change that, so it is the same
(the only rename that is accepted is the v5 revert, because the libstdc++ transition
didn't happen in jessie, nor jessie-bpo)
>Horum, this seems odd to me. In unstable we have
>https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/btrfs-progs btrfs-progs src package
>which builds btrfs-progs binary package with most binaries, and
>btrfs-tools dummy transitional package of high enough version number.
>btrfs-tools (depends: btrfs-progs) & btrfs-progs should be
>coinstallable in unstable. And this same property should be available
>in backports, no? And "installing" btrfs-progs package from backports
>should pull in the new btrfs-tools package from backports too. That is
>the current intentions for any system doing stable->testing upgrade,
>and should be the same for stable->backports and/or
>stable+backports->testing.
for some obscure reasons I have been bitted by this issue when trying to debug this one.
I tested the "Provides" and indeed "fixed" the issue, but now that I'm testing it again,
probably you are right, it is an user error:
dak ls btrfs-tools
btrfs-tools | 0.19+20120328-7.1 | oldstable | source, amd64, armel, armhf, i386, ia64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, s390x, sparc
btrfs-tools | 3.17-1.1~bpo70+1 | wheezy-backports | source, amd64, armel, armhf, i386, ia64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, s390x, sparc
btrfs-tools | 3.17-1.1 | stable | source, amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x
btrfs-tools | 3.17-1.1 | stable-kfreebsd | source
btrfs-tools | 4.4-1~bpo8+1 | jessie-backports | source
btrfs-tools | 4.4.1-1.1~bpo8+1 | jessie-backports | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x
btrfs-tools | 4.5.2-1 | testing | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x
btrfs-tools | 4.5.2-1 | unstable | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips, mips64el, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x
>Could this be a user error, that both updated btrfs-tools &
>trfs-progs binary package are not pulled from the backports pocket?
indeed
pbuilder-dist jessie login
apt-get install btrfs-tools
enable backports
apt-get dist-upgrade (nothing, because backports isn't pulled by default)
apt-get install -t jessie-backports btrfs-tools
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following extra packages will be installed:
btrfs-progs
The following NEW packages will be installed:
btrfs-progs
The following packages will be upgraded:
btrfs-tools
1 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 2 not upgraded.
apt-get install libsnapper2 snapper system-storage-manager
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following extra packages will be installed:
cryptsetup-bin dmeventd init-system-helpers libboost-system1.55.0 libboost-thread1.55.0 libdbus-1-3 libdevmapper-event1.02.1 libexpat1 libffi6 liblvm2cmd2.02 libpopt0 libpython-stdlib libpython2.7-minimal
libpython2.7-stdlib libreadline5 libssl1.0.0 libxml2 lvm2 mime-support python python-minimal python2.7 python2.7-minimal xfsprogs
Suggested packages:
thin-provisioning-tools python-doc python-tk python2.7-doc binfmt-support xfsdump attr quota
Recommended packages:
dbus xml-core file
The following NEW packages will be installed:
cryptsetup-bin dmeventd init-system-helpers libboost-system1.55.0 libboost-thread1.55.0 libdbus-1-3 libdevmapper-event1.02.1 libexpat1 libffi6 liblvm2cmd2.02 libpopt0 libpython-stdlib libpython2.7-minimal
libpython2.7-stdlib libreadline5 libsnapper2 libssl1.0.0 libxml2 lvm2 mime-support python python-minimal python2.7 python2.7-minimal snapper system-storage-manager xfsprogs
so, with a -t jessie-backports everything seems fine.
No error at all I guess.
>I'm not running out of time =) I just travel and spend a week cruisingin the Caribbean without any internet connectivity ;-)
nice! have fun then :)
>btrfs-tools binary package is still built by the new src:btrfs-progs
>package and should be available to satisfy relationships. Is that not
>the case, and/or is buggy as per above?
probably the solution is "Don't touch, it isn't broken" :)
thanks!
G.
> cheers!
>
> G.
>
>
> On 24 May 2016 at 15:18, Uher Marek <marek.uher@t-mobile.cz> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hello Dimitri,
>>
>>
>>
>> I detected possible problem with btrfs-progs package on our Debian GNU/Linux
>> 8.4 (jessie) servers. The issue is that the new btrfs-progs doesn’t work
>> correctly with following packages:
>>
>>
>>
>> · Snapper
>>
>> · system-storage-manager
>>
>>
>>
>> When I tried to install new btrfs-progs package (4.4.1-1.1~bpo8+1) I got
>> this warning:
>>
>>
>>
>> root@xaero:~# apt-get -u install btrfs-progs
>>
>> Reading package lists... Done
>>
>> Building dependency tree
>>
>> Reading state information... Done
>>
>> The following packages will be REMOVED:
>>
>> btrfs-tools libsnapper2 snapper system-storage-manager
>>
>> The following NEW packages will be installed:
>>
>> btrfs-progs
>>
>> 0 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 4 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
>>
>> Need to get 525 kB of archives.
>>
>> After this operation, 1,498 kB disk space will be freed.
>>
>> Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
>>
>> Abort.
>>
>> root@xaero:~#
>>
>>
>>
>> Simply, snapper and system-storage-manager packages depend on btrfs-tools
>> and therefore we are not able to install the new btrfs-progs package without
>> breaking package dependencies. I want therefore kindly ask you if you are
>> able to fix mentioned problem. Many thanks in advance for your answer or
>> help. Have a nice day.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Marek
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ing. Marek Uher
>>
>> Senior ICT Consultant
>>
>> Expert Solutions & Innovations Team
>>
>> B2B Service Delivery Management Department
>>
>> Business Segment Division
>>
>>
>>
>> T-Mobile Czech Republic a.s.
>>
>> Tomíčkova 2144/1
>>
>> Praha 4
>>
>> 149 00
>>
>> Czech Republic
>>
>> Mobile: (+420) 739 242 103
>>
>> Phone: (+420) 236 099 704
>>
>> Fax: (+420) 236 099 999
>>
>> E-mail: marek.uher@t-mobile.cz
>>
>> http://www.t-mobile.cz/
>>
>> http://www.t-systems.cz/
>>
>> http://www.gts.cz/
>>
>>
>>
>> T-Mobile Czech Republic a.s.
>>
>> Commercial Register: Municipal Court in Prague, Part B, Entry No. 3787
>>
>> Registered office: Tomickova 2144/1, Prague 4, 149 00
>>
>> Company ID: 64949681
>>
>> Tax ID: CZ64949681
>>
>>
>>
>> BIG CHANGES START SMALL - CONSERVE RESOURCE BY NOT PRINTING EVERY E-MAIL
>>
>>
>>
>> Tato zpráva a její přílohy mohou obsahovat interní nebo důvěrné informace.
>> Pokud nejste zamýšlený příjemce, tak prosím neprodleně oznamte odesílateli,
>> že jste obdrželi tuto zprávu omylem. Jakákoliv prohlížení, šíření nebo
>> kopírování této zprávy je přísně zakázáno. Neprodleně tuto zprávu a všechny
>> její přílohy smažte. Děkujeme.
>>
>>
>>
>> This transmittal and/or attachements may be privileged or confidental. It is
>> intended solely for addressee named below. Any dissemination, or copying is
>> strictly prohibited. If you received this transmittal in error, please
>> notify us immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and its
>> attachements. Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Zásady komunikace, které společnost T-Mobile Czech Republic a.s. užívá při
>> sjednávání smluv, jsou uvedeny zde. Není-li v zásadách uvedeno jinak,
>> nepředstavuje tato zpráva konečný návrh na uzavření či změnu smlouvy ani
>> přijetí takového návrhu. The communication principles which T-Mobile Czech
>> Republic a.s. applies when negotiating contracts are defined here. Unless
>> otherwise stated in the principles, this message does not constitute the
>> final offer to contract or an amendment of a contract or acceptance of such
>> offer.
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Dimitri.
--
Regards,
Dimitri.
Reply to: