Re: mass bug filing about packages with empty /usr/share/doc/$package/ (no copyright file)?
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 03:12:09PM +0200, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> someone asked me to add a piuparts check for packages that don't have a
> copyright file /usr/share/doc/$package/copyright. I added something
> (it's now in the git repository and running on piuparts.d.o) and filed a
> few bugs already, but now it seems the problem is more widespread. The
> problem usually occurs after an upgrade (e.g. squeeze->wheezy) where the
> package does change something w.r.t directories and symlinks in
> As dpkg intentionally does not replace a directory with a symlink (or
> vice versa), these package usually end up with an empty /u/s/d/$package/
> directory instead of a symlink like
> /u/s/d/$package -> $package-common , so maintainer scripts are needed to
> do the conversion.
> The list of buggy packages can be found here:
> (There are some logs with different "unclassified" problems, but most of
> them have this problem.)
Since this is related to upgrading, I guess that this cannot be checked by
lintian. If you're looking for a consensus on debian-devel on whether mass bug
filing is appropriate in this case, then I can say that I agree.
> I'm afraid I don't have the time right now to thoroughly analyze these
> logs and report all the bugs, so some help would be welcome.
I'm offering help, but only for part of the work : I could write a perl script
that periodically scans the logfiles and submits additional bugs.
> Right now there are about 30 packages being buggy, but more will
> probably show up as squeeze2wheezy gets retested with the new check.
> Also we should formulate some advice how to fix this issue, probably
> including some maintainer script snippets. There are several DDs that
> have already fixed these bugs (thanks!), so they should know how to do
> this :-)
Maybe this advice can be put on a wiki page and the mass bug filing can point
to that wiki page, so that additional aspects to give advice on can be added on
that wiki page. (But I'm currently not voluteering to write the advice.)
> As missing a copyright file is a violation of policy 12.5, these would
> be RC bugs affecting wheezy.
> The error output at the end of the logfile looks like this:
> MISSING COPYRIGHT FILE: /usr/share/doc/bitlbee/copyright
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Sep 15 12:45 /usr/share/doc/bitlbee
> total 8
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Sep 15 12:45 .
> drwxr-xr-x 92 root root 4096 Sep 15 12:45 ..
> and was generated with
> echo MISSING COPYRIGHT FILE: $PKGDOCDIR/copyright
> ls -lad $PKGDOCDIR
> ls -la $PKGDOCDIR/
> A bug template should probably start with:
> <------------- snip ------------------>
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: $PACKAGE: copyright file missing after upgrade (policy 12.5)
> Package: $PACKAGE
> Version: $VERSION
> Severity: serious
> User: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Usertags: piuparts
> Control: found -1 $PACKAGE/$VERSION
> during a test with piuparts I noticed your package misses the copyright
> file after an upgrade from squeeze to wheezy, which is a violation of
> Policy 12.5:
> After the upgrade /usr/share/doc/$PACKAGE/ is just an empty directory.
> <------------- snap ------------------>
Looks like a good start for the bug reports.