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

Bug#762194: Proposal for upgrades to jessie

On Tue, 25 Nov 2014, Svante Signell wrote:

> (another partial? solution is to change order of the (pre-)depends of
> the init package, as proposed in

No, that breaks due to the bug in debootstrap’s dependency “resolver”
(see #557322, #668001, #768062) and the unwillingness of KiBi to fix
that. That is, it breaks fresh installs.

> 1) Heavily advertise (release-notes?) that doing an upgrade from
> wheezy/etc to jessie will give you systemd as init system and inform
> about the apt pinning solution.

That should be a given, a minimum, independent of the others.

> 2) In case you missed doing the above, you get a debconf prompt when

No, no, no, no, no, no, no!

Again: aborting the dist-upgrade in the debconf of one
package may leave the system an ugly mess, especially
if you don’t preconfigure packages.

The linux-image-* check in their prerm for an attempt
to remove the running kernel. Even that is borderline,
and only somewhat acceptable because you would not
normally do that during a dist-upgrade.

This is not “suboptimal”, this invites not just new
bugs but new classes of bugs. Recovering the system
after that is going to be hell.

One thing you *could* do is a debconf warning (just
a message!) after the switch to systemd, to tell users
to switch back manually *before* rebooting (for these
cases where e.g. systemd is incompatible with the SoC’s
2.6 kernel you absolutely must run). Does that work,
anyway (i.e. does installing systemd and immediately
reverting to sysvinit leave the system net unchanged,
modulo the dependencies it pulls in (see planet post))?

> 3) Heavily advertise (again in release notes?) that you need to install
> sysvinit-core and add the pinning file _before_ dist-upgrading.

As I said, this should be a given.

> Note that the only technical in the above is the creation of a debconf
> prompt in pre/post-inst of the init package. All the rest is just a
> matter of writing.

Right, and I believe that a debconf *message* is
appropriate, but a *prompt* with a choice to abort
the upgrade is wrong.

Just a user…

Reply to: