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

Bug#822671: initramfs-tools: preserves unmodified /etc/initramfs-tools/initramfs.conf on upgrades from jessie



On 2 October 2016 at 07:15, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-09-30 at 09:57 +1000, Andrew Worsley wrote:
>> Hi, I am a newbie (have a mentor account and looking to help)
>> I just looked into this bug and tried to apply the patch - but it
>> appears the files are missing - perhaps way out of date?
> [...]
>
> The patch applies for me with 'patch -p1'.  But I haven't yet taken the
> time to try it out.
>
> Ben.

  Sorry I got confused and was apply to an older (0.120 version) it applies
 perfectly for me against 0.125 the latest version. I believe version
looks ok to
a basic piuparts but I am having troubles testing a distribution
upgrade with piuparts
but that might be a  limitation of piuparts or my knowledge on how to run it.

Help on how to proceed would be appreciated.

It may well be that the unpatched version is fine now - I did most of
my testing with the patched
package.

* I checked it with a basic piuparts :
  piuparts initramfs-tools_0.125_all.deb

  * and got a complaint:
....
4m20.9s ERROR: FAIL: Package purging left files on system:
  /var/log/apt/eipp.log.xz       not owned
....

  I got this on the unpatched *and* the patched version of the package.
It turns out this is a piupart bug - fixed in version 0.72
    https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=830527

I upgraded to backports version of piuparts:
  apt-get install piuparts/jessie-backports

vagrant(0)% piuparts --version
piuparts 0.72~bpo8+1

and it is much happier:
  * piuparts -s piuparts-base.tgz initramfs-tools-core_0.125+nmu1_all.deb
....
4m55.5s DEBUG: Removed directory tree at /tmp/tmpJyGQJ8
4m55.5s INFO: PASS: All tests.
4m55.5s INFO: piuparts run ends.

  * Running the .changes file into a log and grep-ing the info entries
all looks good.
   piuparts -b piuparts-base.tgz -l piuparts-log.txt
initramfs-tools_0.125+nmu1_amd64.changes
....
0m24.5s INFO: Installation of
['tmp/initramfs-tools-core_0.125+nmu1_all.deb',
'tmp/initramfs-tools_0.125+nmu1_all.deb'] ok
0m25.8s INFO: Running adequate version 0.12.1 now.
0m27.7s INFO: PASS: Installation, upgrade and purging tests.
0m28.0s INFO: PASS: All tests.
0m28.0s INFO: piuparts run ends.

  * Trying to run an upgrade test fails:
piuparts -b piuparts-base.tgz -l piuparts-log2.txt -d jessie -d
stretch initramfs-tools_0.125+nmu1_amd64.changes
....
1m12.5s DEBUG: Starting command: ['chroot', '/tmp/tmpcZJKsf',
'eatmydata', 'apt-get', '-y', 'install', 'initramfs-tools']
1m12.8s DUMP:
  Reading package lists...
  Building dependency tree...
  Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
  requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
  distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
  or been moved out of Incoming.
  The following information may help to resolve the situation:

  The following packages have unmet dependencies:
   initramfs-tools : Depends: udev but it is not going to be installed
  E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
1m12.8s ERROR: Command failed (status=100): ['chroot',
'/tmp/tmpcZJKsf', 'eatmydata', 'apt-get', '-y', 'install',
'initramfs-tools']
  Reading package lists...
  Building dependency tree...
  Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
  requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
  distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
  or been moved out of Incoming.
  The following information may help to resolve the situation:

  The following packages have unmet dependencies:
   initramfs-tools : Depends: udev but it is not going to be installed
  E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
....


Is there a way to do this with piuparts or  do I have to figure out
some way to testing this by actually physically upgrading my vagrant
box to stretch and checking if there are files left behind?

Finally if the patched version is worth applying what other functional
tests should be considered to validate the patched version?

Thanks

Andrew


Reply to: