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

Bug#699744: nagios3-cgi: prompting due to modified conffiles which were not modified by the user: /etc/nagios3/stylesheets/outages.css


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,


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.

Reply to: