[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#472846: marked as done (busybox: Regression in pidof: no longer lists 'debian-installer' processes)

Your message dated Tue, 5 Aug 2008 19:43:22 +0200
with message-id <20080805174322.GF9208@mx.loc>
and subject line Re: Bug#472846: busybox: Regression in pidof: no longer lists 'debian-installer' processes
has caused the Debian Bug report #472846,
regarding busybox: Regression in pidof: no longer lists 'debian-installer' processes
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
472846: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=472846
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: busybox
Version: 1:1.9.2-1
Severity: important
Tags: d-i

In Debian Installer we're seeing a regression in pidof. For certain
processes it no longer returns the PID.

# ps ax | grep [d]ebian-installer
  452 root       1408 S   /bin/sh /sbin/debian-installer
 5594 root       1964 S   /bin/sh /sbin/debian-installer /bin/network-console-m
 5641 root       1964 S   /bin/sh /sbin/debian-installer /bin/network-console-m
# pidof debian-installer
#

With busybox 1.3.x the pidof command would return the PIDs:
# pidof debian-installer
452 5594 5641


The first of these processes is started from /etc/inittab:
::respawn:/bin/cttyhack /sbin/debian-installer

The second and third are started from an ssh connection to the system:
# cat /etc/passwd
root:*:0:0:root:/:/bin/sh
installer:x:0:0:installer:/:/bin/network-console
# cat /bin/network-console
#!/bin/sh
set -e
[...]
exec /sbin/debian-installer /bin/network-console-menu

-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.25-rc6 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

Versions of packages busybox depends on:
ii  libc6                         2.7-9      GNU C Library: Shared libraries

busybox recommends no packages.

-- no debconf information

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 07:16:08PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:

Hi Thijs,

>On Tuesday 5 August 2008 17:54, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
>> tag 472846 fixed-upstream
>> thanks
>>
>> Works fine for me with busybox >= 1.10.4
>
>Thanks for helping out with this! We've gained quite some backlog on busybox 
>bugs that were mostly filed against an old version - I've been working on 
>that a bit but more help is surely welcome.
>
>Two notes I can make here:
>- your tag command is ok but you need to Cc "control@bugs.debian.org" for such 
>commands to be processed.

Ah, I already wondered why "it" didn't pick up the tag. Thanks for the
hint -- i'm not used to interact with the BTS since usually everything
works quite flawlessly for me in debian :)

>- if you can actually test against the version in Debian unstable, you could 
>even close the bug directly rather than tagging it. I've tested it against 
>current Debian busybox and 1:1.10.2-1 indeed seems to have it fixed aswell, 
>so I'm closing the bug with this mail. Feel free to do so aswell in 
>situations where that's appropriate.

Ok, i didn't test it against debian's 1.10.2 but only against the
versions i had at hand. So please do close it if you didn't do that
already. TIA!
Likewise for e.g. that bug 323670 which is a debian-config related thing
and is moot, since we removed the debian directory a long time ago,
really.
>
>In any case, if you have any information to add to a bug report that's of 
>course always useful. Thanks!

We'll get 1.11.2 in shape to close as many debian bugs as possible and trick
lenny into shipping with that, yes. In fact, that was the point of /me
looking at those bugs in the first place.

Any help with closing _any_ busybox related bugs that are not yet fixed
upstream (as in on trunk or the stable 1_11 branch) is very, very
welcome.

Now would be an excellent time to report open issues with
busybox-1.11.x.

thanks again and cheers,
Bernhard
PS:
$ svn co svn://svn.busybox.net/branches/busybox_1_11_stable
$ svn co svn://svn.busybox.net/trunk/busybox

--- End Message ---
Reply to: