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

Re: [RFR] qcumber 2.3.0-2 and piuparts issues

Good job!  Thanks a lot, Andreas.

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 08:23:56PM +0100, Étienne Mollier wrote:
> Hi Nilesh,
> Nilesh Patra, on 2021-01-12 23:39:20 +0530:
> > However, any idea as to why the corresponding salsa CI on piuparts fails?
> > 
> > https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/qcumber/-/jobs/1332459
> This issue appears in the upgrade test from previous installed
> qcumber version.  It is based on upgrading from the 2.3.0-1,
> which has the different and faulty /etc/qcumber/config.txt file.
> Dpkg detects this difference upon upgrade and requests the user
> for input, which fails the test.  I think this is a good clue to
> detect whether NEWS items are required to document changes in
> configuration, but shouldn't be blocking, since configuration
> items in lots of packages may evolve from time to time.
> Trying to recognize the faulty config file and modify it, if not
> done right, I could potentially alter local changes, something
> forbidden by the policy[1].  What's what I wanted to avoid, but
> prepared in a preinst script just in case[2]; note that this one
> did not fail the piuparts Salsa CI test[3].
> [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#behavior
> [2] https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/qcumber/-/blob/qcumber-2.3.0-1-preinst/debian/preinst
> [3] https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/qcumber/-/jobs/1332470
> This 2.3.0-1 never made it into Testing, so I think this issue
> shouldn't impede upgrade paths from Buster or Testing.  Indeed,
> users of Unstable may have to examine the situation on upgrade.
> In any case, Thanks for asking!  :)
> In hope this clarifies things,
> -- 
> Étienne Mollier <etienne.mollier@mailoo.org>
> Fingerprint:  8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c  8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da
> Sent from /dev/pts/0, please excuse my verbosity.


Reply to: