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

Re: Bug#704744: pbuilder: umounts /{dev,run}/shm of the *host* system

Control: severity -1 important

Thorsten Glaser <tg@mirbsd.de> (08/04/2013):
> Cyril Brulebois dixit:
> >Next time, can you please put the right people in the loop?!
> >
> >Cc-ing:
> > debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
> I did a reply-to-all on the mail.
> >is just plain stupid. Maintainers of the package you're reassigning to
> >don't get your control mail. Way to communicate!
> I did not know that. I think this is a debbugs bug; it’s inconsistent
> to require of the bug submitter to manually look up maintainers (for
> example, I wasn’t aware debootstrap has anything to do with booting
> Debian…) when reassigning, when one doesn’t have to do so normally.

Thankfully there's $package@packages.debian.org so that no lookup is

The doc says:
  Records that bug #bugnumber is a bug in package. This can be used to
  set the package if the user forgot the pseudo-header, or to change
  an earlier assignment. No notifications are sent to anyone (other
  than the usual information in the processing transcript).

> If debootstrap tries to umount a symlink that points to outside the
> chroot, I’d call it an issue with debootstrap, independent of…
> >wishlist in debootstrap to support the new thing pbuilder imposes, and
> >an RC bug in pbuilder not to depend on a debootstrap version
> >implementing said improved behaviour.
> … this one.

Certainly not an RC one. Faulty setups can lead to suboptimal
behaviours. That's one such case. Lowering severity accordingly (even
if as I said, important is probably too high on the debootstrap side).

> Yes, the maintainers of debootstrap (and possibly cdebootstrap),
> pbuilder and cowbuilder should probably talk to each other.
> Ideally.

No kidding.

> But right now, we have a bug that breaks unrelated software, by
> umounting my /run/shm every time I create a chroot, and thus
> deleting every piece of data that was put there. In this particular
> instance, I’m the user who doesn’t really care about where the bug
> is, or whose fault it is – this is one of the major problems with a
> system based on packages of separate maintainers…

In this particular instance, I'm the guy who really doesn't care about
your opinion about what the major problems with a system based on
packages of separate maintainers are. Please get your random rants
elsewhere, preferably around /dev/null.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: