Re: Bug#220437: cgiwrap.allow replaced by package upgrade
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 05:58:32PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> Someone, it is not clear who or when, wrote:
> > > > It seems the problem is a conflict between the way Debian
> > > > does configuration files (if it's there it won't be touched,
> > > > but if it's not there it will be put there), and logic that
> > > > involves the presence or absence of a file.
>
> On Wed, 2004-05-26 at 17:18, allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr wrote:
> > Hello, I would like to point out that this statement is false:
>
> Bill,
>
> As you have written it - with a colon at the end of your statement - you
> appear to be saying that the following policy is false. However,
> reading the rest of the note as context, I understand you to mean that
> the unattributed statement above is false, and then cite the following
> policy to back up this assertion. Is that correct?
Yes, I was refering to the statement above.
> I have sometimes wondered if an audit trail kept, in perpetuity, of dpkg
> package database status changes would be a good idea. It would come in
> handy for mysteries like this one. Unfortunately, so far as I can see,
> the only such status change info kept is in /var/lib/dpkg, and that is
> only for the last set of changes, not the last several. This is
> probably too little, too late by the time an investigation is in full
> swing.
The info is in /var/lib/dpkg/info/xxx.conffiles. Given the nature of
/var, this is fragile: this partition can get full, or get
corrupted by crash (since it is written to by daemon, logfile, etc...
On option is to put /var/lib/dpkg to a separate partition.
Of course having versionned back up would help more.
> > Alternatively it might be a bug in a old version of the package that did
> > not register cgiwrap.allow as conffiles.
>
> This is testable. Look at woody, potato, slink ... etc. until you find
> a version that doesn't list cgiwrap.allow as a conffile (ignoring for
> the moment the possibility that an interim version might have not listed
> it as a conffile.) So far I checked woody & potato versions of cgiwrap,
> and both have cgiwrap.allow in ./debian/conffiles. While not proof
> positive that this wasn't what happened, it certainly makes it seem less
> likely.
Yes, though maybe the bug is in a version that was not released as part
of a stable release, if the reporter used sid before.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: