Re: Bug #808205 inappropriately marked as closed
Thank you, Aurelien, for the informative answer.
crt is the single most popular static object on a Unix system, and libc6
is also one of the most popular dependencies. As a pragmatic matter,
don't mark all of them, just mark the one that will get in the way of
every single user. Breaking the ELF file format itself is not something
to be done carelessly or shrugged off. The plan does not need to be
perfect but it can be a bit better than "meh."
In other words, have any of the other affected packages received 4
reports of this issue already?
And the idea that partial upgrades are not supported is a farce. I've
been doing partial upgrades on Debian for 21 years now, and the places
where they are broken are few and far between -- on this issue, today,
glibc is underperforming compared to the vast majority of Debian. Debian
is unique in having such a robust dependency system. To fail on a
partial upgrade is forgivable, but it is not unavoidable.
Disagree with me if you want, but you are talking to the man who invented
dpkg --force-all. :) They told me I was crazy, but I didn't listen! No
one can resist! I bet you even use dpkg --force-all yourself, and why
would you do that if not for partial upgrades?? MWAHAHAHAH!! (evil mad
scientist laugh)
Mark my words: You will hear more about this from other users before the
week is up. This is the last from me though!
Carry on,
- Greg
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:50:18PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On 2016-02-16 16:11, Greg Alexander wrote:
> > Hi -
> >
> > Sorry that I am not up on all of the details, but I have run into a bug
> > that had already -- and incorrectly -- been marked closed. Many more
> > people will be running into the same issue soon because of
> > CVE-2015-7547-inspired updates over the next few days.
> >
> > Bug #808205 seems to be a version dependency between glibc and binutils
> > that, from a user's perspective, breaks all compiles if binutils is not
> > new enough. It seems that the bug was closed because the proper version
> > of binutils became available. The good news is that I can confirm that
> > upgrading binutils "fixes" the issue.
> >
> > However, apt is capable of resolving this issue before it presents to the
> > user. Off the top of my head, I think the "Breaks:" line needs an entry
> > like "binutils (<< 2.25.90.20151219-1)" (but I am no apt guru). The
> > issue has definitely not been fixed if everyone updating glibc has to
> > google the bug report to know to upgrade binutils.
>
> This is nothing specific to glibc, but affects all static libraries.
> This doesn't seem to make sense to fix thousand of source packages just
> because of that, so it has been decided that we won't add a breaks
> entry. In general partial upgrades are not supported.
>
> --
> Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
> aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Reply to: