Re: (Bad) results of running piuparts over the whole archive
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 10:03:35PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> 332 packages installed OK, but failed to remove. I believe that the
> number of false positives amongst those is very low (probably under
> 20%). Of course, it doesn't mean 332 possible RC bugs, since some
> packages failed because of others (e.g bacula failed because
> bacula-common). Popular reasons include:
> 149 /usr/share/debconf/confmodule: No such file or directory
> 44 (userdel|deluser): command not found
> 17 update-inetd: command not found
> 5 ucf: command not found
> 4 (groupdel|delgroup): command not found
> What do we do with that ? In another piuparts campaign at the end of
> last year, I filed quite a lot of bugs, but voluntarily ignored
> missing depends on packages of priority >= important, and missing
> depends on ucf (which is prio:optional), just to keep the number of
> failures manageable. Should we concentrate on finding "important"
> failures (packages with missing depends|pre-depends on packages with
> priority < important), or do we want to consider all those bugs RC ?
As previously discussed, use of debconf in the postrm is not RC because it's
a package of priority: required, so removing it in a purge run together with
the depending package is something of a pathological use case.
Likewise, the userdel and groupdel commands are from the passwd package,
which is of prio: required. However, the deluser/delgroup commands are
*not* from passwd, they're from adduser, which is prio: important and thus
subject to removal, just like update-inetd and ucf are.
So those four classes of bugs are potentially RC for etch, though we may
ultimately decide to etch-ignore unfixed ones if they would otherwise hold
up the release.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.