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

Bug#1011268: marked as done (release.debian.org: proposes autoremoving every package(?) when nvidia-graphics-drivers-tesla-470 is RC-buggy)

Your message dated Thu, 9 Jun 2022 13:05:33 +0200
with message-id <5f4eb019-af47-7a6f-f974-bb8f3c007581@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#1011268: release.debian.org: proposes autoremoving every package(?) when nvidia-graphics-drivers-tesla-470 is RC-buggy
has caused the Debian Bug report #1011268,
regarding release.debian.org: proposes autoremoving every package(?) when nvidia-graphics-drivers-tesla-470 is RC-buggy
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
1011268: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1011268
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org

dkms and nvidia-graphics-drivers-tesla-470 currently have RC bug #1010884
triggering autoremovals (it was closed today, so maybe it will cease to be
relevant soon).

I would expect the only packages affected by this to be packages that
specifically depend on dkms or on the NVIDIA proprietary driver.

However, looking at
https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/autoremovals.cgi
it looks as though literally every package is up for autoremoval:

Santiago Vila <sanvila@debian.org>
   base-files: buggy deps nvidia-graphics-drivers-tesla-470, flagged for removal in 36.8 days

This seems very wrong. I'm fairly sure base-files doesn't depend on
graphics drivers, and in any case the NVIDIA proprietary driver is in
non-free, so by policy no package in main can possibly depend on it.

It might be better if autoremovals were evaluated something like this:

1. work out what autoremovals would take place if main was the only
   archive area that existed;
2. then, do the same for the union of main, contrib and non-free, but
   ignore attempts to autoremove additional packages from main during this
   phase

That would mean that a RC-buggy main package could trigger autoremovals
from main, contrib and/or non-free, but RC-buggy contrib/non-free packages
could only trigger autoremovals from contrib/non-free.

    smcv

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi Simon,

On 19-05-2022 12:37, Simon McVittie wrote:

That would mean that a RC-buggy main package could trigger autoremovals
from main, contrib and/or non-free, but RC-buggy contrib/non-free packages
could only trigger autoremovals from contrib/non-free.
As documented in the bug, the issue was that one key package and one of the to-be-removed packages shared a Provides that wasn't provided by any real package of the same name. I have updated the autoremoval script and untagged the offending bugs this morning. All seems to be fine now. 

Paul
For reference: https://salsa.debian.org/qa/udd/-/commit/78adf38dd2303688047e135d7e96e180b2163f26

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: