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

Bug#682172: marked as done (unblock: couchdb/1.2.0-2)

Your message dated Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:23:13 +0100
with message-id <20121127072313.GF5634@radis.cristau.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#682172: unblock: couchdb/1.2.0-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #682172,
regarding unblock: couchdb/1.2.0-2
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.)


-- 
682172: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=682172
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: freeze-exception
thanks

Hi,

Please unblock couchdb/1.2.0-2 which fixes #681549 [1].
On new installs /var/run/couchdb is created to store the pidfile in, but
as root:root . Then the couchdb user can't store its pid there, due to
owner problems. Filed as important, but can be RC as couchdb fails to
start if can't store the pidfile.
The fix is oneliner:
+++ couchdb-1.2.0/etc/init/couchdb.tpl.in
     mkdir -p "$RUN_DIR"
+    chown -R "$COUCHDB_USER" "$RUN_DIR"
     command="$COUCHDB -b"

But complete debdiff is attached.

Thanks,
Laszlo/GCS
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681549

diff -Nru couchdb-1.2.0/debian/changelog couchdb-1.2.0/debian/changelog
--- couchdb-1.2.0/debian/changelog	2012-06-29 20:31:16.000000000 +0200
+++ couchdb-1.2.0/debian/changelog	2012-07-19 20:35:03.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+couchdb (1.2.0-2) unstable; urgency=low
+
+  * Make couchdb user own its run directory (closes: #681549).
+
+ -- Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) <gcs@debian.hu>  Thu, 19 Jul 2012 20:13:25 +0200
+
 couchdb (1.2.0-1) unstable; urgency=low
 
   * New major upstream release (closes: #672141).
diff -Nru couchdb-1.2.0/debian/patches/couchdb_own_rundir.patch couchdb-1.2.0/debian/patches/couchdb_own_rundir.patch
--- couchdb-1.2.0/debian/patches/couchdb_own_rundir.patch	1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
+++ couchdb-1.2.0/debian/patches/couchdb_own_rundir.patch	2012-07-19 20:57:00.000000000 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+Description: Initscript creates RUN_DIR , make sure it's owned by couchdb
+ Add chown after the mkdir to make COUCHDB_USER own the RUN_DIR being created.
+Author: Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) <gcs@debian.hu>
+Bug-Debian: http://bugs.debian.org/681549
+Last-Update: 2012-07-19
+
+---
+
+--- couchdb-1.2.0.orig/etc/init/couchdb.tpl.in
++++ couchdb-1.2.0/etc/init/couchdb.tpl.in
+@@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ start_couchdb () {
+     # Start Apache CouchDB as a background process.
+ 
+     mkdir -p "$RUN_DIR"
++    chown -R "$COUCHDB_USER" "$RUN_DIR"
+     command="$COUCHDB -b"
+     if test -n "$COUCHDB_STDOUT_FILE"; then
+         command="$command -o $COUCHDB_STDOUT_FILE"
diff -Nru couchdb-1.2.0/debian/patches/series couchdb-1.2.0/debian/patches/series
--- couchdb-1.2.0/debian/patches/series	2011-11-27 09:19:17.000000000 +0100
+++ couchdb-1.2.0/debian/patches/series	2012-07-19 20:46:55.000000000 +0200
@@ -1 +1,2 @@
 force-reload.patch
+couchdb_own_rundir.patch

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 21:26:05 +0000, Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) wrote:

> On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 21:44 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > On 21.11.2012 21:39, Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) wrote:
> > >  Tested on the CLI, then copied late in the evening. Will be:
> > > ++    while [ $($COUCHDB -s 2>/dev/null | grep -c process) -eq 1 ]; \
> > > ++        do echo -n .; sleep 1; done;
> > > 
> > > Is it okay to upload -3 with the discussed changes?
> > 
> > Thanks, that looks a bit better. My only concern now would be, that you
> > can end up in a endless loop if the couchdb instance doesn't want to die.
> > Can such a situation happen or will couchdb -d forcefully kill the
> > processes automatically?
>  I don't think it'll be forcefully killed, but not sure. I'm not good in
> Erlang. But I propose the following then just to be sure:
> RET=1;
> for i in $(seq 1 30); do
>   status=`$COUCHDB -s 2>/dev/null | grep -c process`;
>   if [ "$status" -eq 0 ]; then
>     RET=0;
>     break;
>   fi;
>   echo -n .;
>   sleep 1s;
> done;
> return $RET
> 
> Should the time be increased or maybe decreased? Half a minute sounds
> acceptable for me, but you may think otherwise.
> 
I might have put the 'couchdb -d' call inside the loop just in case, but
what you've done is hopefully good enough, so unblocked.

Thanks,
Julien

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: