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

Bug#918379: marked as done (please decide: severity of "fails to purge" issues)

Your message dated Mon, 7 Jan 2019 10:14:33 +0100
with message-id <4f315c66-a9e1-a4e4-4e6a-fa042d22c78d@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#918379: please decide: severity of "fails to purge" issues
has caused the Debian Bug report #918379,
regarding please decide: severity of "fails to purge" issues
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.)


-- 
918379: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=918379
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
package: release.debian.org
x-debbugs-cc: debian-policy@lists.debian.org, piuparts-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org>

Hi,

filing this as a bug now. Please reassign to src:piuparts once you have
decided...

On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 03:34:23PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> in https://github.com/anbe42/piuparts/commit/283dac3ae7e31fee51efb836468cd8ca5b61584f
> (not yet merged into the main piuparts repo) Andreas proposes to file bugs
> regarding failing to purge with severity 'serious" because "old bugs are
> filed/fixed and any failure due to a regression in sid will block migration
> anyway", while we used to treat 'failing to purge' bugs as severity
> 'important' as in practice those bugs are merely annoying (while being a
> clear policy violation).
> 
> There's also at least #918312 filed by Adrian Bunk.
> 
> The reasoning that these bugs will block migrations anyway sounds sound
> - except for new packages though!
> 
> So I would like to have the opinion of the release team if you also
> think that those bugs should be filed with severity 'serious' nowadays.
> (As it was their opinion that this shouldn't be done previously.)
> 
> What do you think?

this led to this discussion on #-release:

<ivodd>  h01ger: what does 'fails to purge' mean? the purge fails (gives
         errors) or the purge 'succeeds', but files are left?
<h01ger> both
<ivodd>  and with 'both' you mean: 'either of these will produce that error'?
<h01ger> yes. https://piuparts.debian.org/templates/mail/ lists 5 cases with purge failures
<ivodd>  personally, if the purge command fails, I wouldn't even hesitate to\
         call the serious (I'm surprised it wasn't filed as serious before)
<ivodd>  if the command succeeds and files are left over, I might hesitate a
         bit, but on the other hand, if you can't remove all the files, you
	 have no right to call that a 'successful' purge
<ivodd>  so I wouldn't mind if that was filed as serious as well
<h01ger> usually purges are done manually so failing to purge with exit 1 doesnt
         really have an effect. thats why it was important only
<ivodd>  well, it means something is wrong, and the user gets to clean it up manually
<ivodd>  but I don't think we disagree here :)
<h01ger> :)
<ivodd>  I don't really like adding new cases for RC bugs just before the freeze,
         but if this type of error has been tested for quite some time, then it
	 isn't really a 'new' case
<h01ger> ivodd: i think i will reply to the bug via submit@bugs.d.o (assigned to release.d.o) and include our replies there
<h01ger> yeah
<ivodd>  ok
<h01ger> it has been tested since lenny :)
<ivodd>  piuparts++
<h01ger> :) thanks!


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
       PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 07/01/2019 00:37, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
>> <ivodd>  h01ger: what does 'fails to purge' mean? the purge fails (gives
>>          errors) or the purge 'succeeds', but files are left?
> 
> The failures intended to be raised to serious are all the cases where
> maintainer scripts will fail - ususally in some corner cases depending
> on (worst-case but dependency-wise valid) ordering of removal and purge
> of the involved packages.
> All known bugs of this kind (as of Dec.) are filed. New ones will either
> be regressions or be newly introduced with new packages. The piuparts
> failures of these already block migration, so filing the corresponding
> bugs as serious seems to be justified.
> In the old times, there were many packages using e.g. ucf incorrectly,
> and would have caused a lot of RC bugs, but these have been fixed over
> the years.
> 
> Leaving files around after purge is a separate that will continue to be
> filed as important.

Agreed with Ivo. Serious for the cases you mention sound reasonable. Please
continue doing that.

Thanks,
Emilio

--- End Message ---
Reply to: