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

Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)

Erik Hollensbe wrote:
> However, around the time of the potato release, things in woody especially
> started falling to shit, mainly in stupid QC that could have been easily
> prevented.

That's not my experience. I've seen breakage, but no more than is
typical in unstable. In fact I've noticed a degree of holding back on
releasing major upgrades (X 4, apt 0.4, etc) into unstable that is
either commendable or a PITA depending on who you ask.

> Some packages refuse to install, and of course, break apt in the process.
> Right now, I'm *hopefully* going to be able to repair a totally hosed
> server that failed an apt-get because MAN AND GROFF failed to install
> properly, ending the upgrade process and therefore stopping the install of
> all the perl/debian-perl packages except the binary, rendering apt
> practically useless.

File a bug. Once you have filed a comprehensive bug report with a log of
the failure and all the information you can think of, page down.

mv /etc/apt/apt.conf /tmp; dpkg --configure -a ; apt-get upgrade

(This is supposedly fixed in unstable already, so I am eagerly awaiting
that bug report.)

> Please, please, please, please... Checking your shell scripts for SYNTAX
> ERRORS is not a bad idea before you submit it to the package repository!

Joey's law: If you're sure you broke something in your pending upload,
and take the time to test it, it will probably work fine. If you don't,
that one innocuous character change to the postinst is going to hose debian 
and net you 30 bug reports in one day (BTDT).

But you're running unstable, so _you_are_our_QA_. If you don't like it,
use testing.

> Also, an option to
> actually view what's being upgraded before you download 250 packages that
> are only going to break your system would be nice as well.


> I dunno - I was using debian back when hamm was released, and I have never
> seen such an utter mess of incompatibilities and stupid human error
> even in the worst mess of unstable upgrades (which happens, and is
> understandable). Almost all of this is due to a significant lack of
> adequate testing by package maintainers.

We're (mostly) human and we only have so much time. Believe me, we do
appreciate unstable users who take the time to make sure a bug has not
been filed already and file a clear and detailed bug report. The rants
I can personally do without.

see shy jo

Reply to: