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

Bug#683142: unblock: bdii/5.2.12-1

sön 2012-07-29 klockan 12:46 +0200 skrev Niels Thykier:
> On 2012-07-29 06:47, Mattias Ellert wrote:
> > Package: release.debian.org
> > Severity: normal
> > User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> > Usertags: freeze-exception
> > 
> > unblock bdii/5.2.12-1
> > 
> > Hi!
> > 
> > The bdii package was removed from testing due to an RC bug, together
> > with the packages that depends on it. The 5.2.12-1 update fixes the RC
> > bug (bug #663444). I would like to request a freeze exception for this
> > update to allow the bdii package and the packages depending on it to be
> > part of the release.
> > 
> > 	Mattias
> > 
> Why did you include a new upstream release in this?  It makes it harder
> for us to review and reduces the chance for you to get the unblock?
> Does this upstream release have important bug fixes, if so what are they?

I had been preparing an update to a new upstream release for a long time
before finally making the upload. On several occasions I have completed
a potential update and then looked at the BTS and thought that I should
fix that RC bug before doing the upload. Since fixing the RC bug was not
trivial this always ment that I held off doing the upload. I finally did
fix the RC bug. The fixed package compared to the last package I
prepared and did not upload was really just fixing the RC bug.

The changes in the package between the previous upload and the new one
are very minor. It is true that if you list the files changed the list
is not short, but most of the changed files are in the debian directory.
These changes are there to do the fix of the RC bug, fix some lintian
warnings and update the copyright file to the new recommended format.
The changes to the patches are just dropping the parts of the patches
that were accepted upstream and rebasing the remaining parts.

For the changes to the upstream itself, i.e. the files outside the
debian directory. These are mainly changes to the default configuration
to reduce the memory consumption and to add support for IPv6.

> --- bdii-5.2.5/debian/bdii.preinst
> +++ bdii-5.2.12/debian/bdii.preinst
> @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
> +#!/bin/sh
> +
> +set -e
> +
> +if [ "$1" = "upgrade" ] ; then
> +    if dpkg --compare-versions "$2" lt "5.2.12" ; then
> +        # Old versions with slapd configs listed in conffiles
> +       if [ -w /var/lib/dpkg/info/bdii.conffiles ] ; then
> +           sed -e /bdii-slapd.conf/d -e /bdii-top-slapd.conf/d \
> +               -i /var/lib/dpkg/info/bdii.conffiles
> +       fi
> +       rm -f /etc/bdii/bdii-slapd.conf /etc/bdii/bdii-top-slapd.conf
> +    fi
> +fi
> +
> I think "dpkg-maintscript-helper rm_conffile" is what you want to be
> policy compliant, but I could be wrong.

Yes this is probably a better idea. I was very happy when I managed to
write a maintainer script that solved the RC bug. But looking at the
code in the dpkg-maintscript-helper script I realize that there are
corner cases that are not properly handled by by script.

> I haven't read the full diff, so there are possibly more issues lurking
> in it.  In its current state, I am not inclined to grant an exception.
> ~Niels
> PS: urgency=high is no effect when the package is not in testing (in
> case you weren't aware of it)

I was not aware. However, the package was in testing until 2 days before
I did the upload. The fact the package was removed made the update very
urgent - and then the urgency is ignored because it was removed....
Well... I don't make the rules.

I can make another update using the dpkg-maintscript-helper script
instead of my own not-so-great fix. If you truly do not want to take
advantage of the fixes for memory usage and IPv6 support I could also
upload a version where I backport the fix for the RC bug to the 5.2.5
version. But I personally think using the new version would be better.
Let me know what you think is petter.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: