Re: DEP 17: Improve support for directory aliasing in dpkg
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 at 14:37, Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 11:41:29AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > You might reasonably say that "the maintainer of bar didn't add the
> > correct Breaks/Replaces on foo" is a RC bug in bar - and it is! - but
> > judging by the number of "missing Breaks/Replaces" bug reports that have
> > to be opened by unstable users (sometimes me), it's a very easy mistake
> > to make.
>
> That number seemed quite vague to me and I wanted to get a better handle
> on it. The rough idea here should be that we have some package from
> bullseye and "upgrade" it to a different package from bookworm.
> Generating useful candidates for this can be done using Contents. Given
> candidates, I've attached a validation script:
>
> ./check_conflicts.sh $OLDPKG bullseye $NEWPKG bookworm
>
> In order to draw value from it, the output must be parsed. The exit code
> can be non-zero for various reasons. As for candidate generation, I
> think one can either just try them all (which takes a bit longer on the
> validation phase) or reduce their number by ignoring existing
> Breaks+Replaces, but I haven't found an elegant solution for the latter
> yet.
>
> In any case, unstable has around:
> * 5700 Breaks
> * 6500 Replaces
> * 100 unpack errors due to missing Breaks+Replaces
>
> That latter number has just been turned into rc bugs...
Hi Helmut,
To make sure we don't miss any packages out accidentally: could you
confirm that those hundred-or-so errors occurred from 27 or so
distinct packages?
(looking at RC bugs created within the past week, I currently find 27
bugs with 'Breaks+Replaces' in the title)
https://udd.debian.org/bugs.cgi?release=na&merged=ign&keypackages=only&fnewer=only&fnewerval=7&flastmodval=7&rc=1&cpopcon=1&chints=1&ckeypackage=1&ctags=1&cdeferred=1&caffected=1&sortby=last_modified&sorto=asc&format=html#results
Thanks,
James
Reply to: