Bug#699744: nagios3-cgi: prompting due to modified conffiles which were not modified by the user: /etc/nagios3/stylesheets/outages.css
Hi,
I agree with Andreas Beckmann it would be useful if a remark could be
added to the release notes. I can apply a patch soon. Below snippets
from previous discussion summarize the relevant parts I believe.
Anybody willing to draft a patch?
Thanks, Bye,
Joost
Guillem Jover schreef:
>On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 00:50:29 +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
>> Bug #689836: dpkg: md5sums incorrectly recorded for conffile takeover
>> http://bugs.debian.org/689836
>>
>> So it's broken in squeeze (dpkg database is corrupted, i.e. contains the wrong
>> md5sums (well, it contains the correct md5sums, too, but at the wrong
>> place)). Whether this happens depends on the configuration order. If
>> nagios-doc is configured before nagios3-cgi it will record the new md5sum for
>> updated conffiles for nagios3-doc instead of nagios-cgi ... even if it no
>> longer owns these files.
>
>> I have no idea how many packages are possibly affected by this or how this can
>> be fixed ... therefore Cc:ing Guillem.
>
>> Wait, we can try this:
>>
>> # apt-get install --reinstall nagios3-cgi
[...]
>>
>> Great, that FIXED the DB.
>
> Right, it should just be either a matter of time, once every problematic
> package has been upgraded after getting a fixed dpkg, or people actively
> reinstalling broken packages. In any case, for wheezy I guess it would
> be nice to strongly recommend on the release notes to upgrade dpkg first.
Andreas Beckmann schreef:
>On 2013-03-02 07:35, Alexander Wirt wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Mar 2013, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>
>>> Based on the bug discussion, I believe this bug against nagios3-cgi should
>>> be closed. The problem is with the dpkg database, and it doesn't sound
>>> like there's anything the package needs to (or should do) to deal with
>>> that issue; it's fixed by either dealing with the prompt during upgrade or
>>> reinstalling the package.
>> agreed, so I'll close this bug now.
>
>Shouldn't this be mentioned in the release-notes?
>apt-get install --reinstall *before* the upgrade is an easy workaround -
>if we make people aware of it.
>
>
>Andreas
Reply to: