Bug#740673: apt-cdrom ident started requesting to insert cd even if cd is already mounted
On 2014-03-08, David Kalnischkies <david@kalnischkies.de> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 01:37:22AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>> Gabriele Giacone <1o5g4r8o@gmail.com> (2014-03-04):
>> > On hurd, "apt-cdrom ident" started requesting to insert cdrom even if cdrom is
>> > already mounted.
>> > That breaks debian-installer given it's called by load-install-cd.
>> > Recent debian-installer builds get stuck at "Configuring apt - Scanning the
>> > CD-ROM".
>> > See https://bugs.debian.org/728153
>>
>> Weekly installation image builds are indeed broken; this is slightly
>> annoying since I was aiming at releasing an alpha 1 image for jessie
>> soon, so that we can perform regression tests against it.
>
> Sorry about that. I am not really able to test cdrom stuff at the moment
> and had hoped that this was actually tested with d-i as the buglog
> indicated this to me (yes I know, silly me). John, as the author of the
> patch, can you shine some light on with what you have tested this (out
> of my interest). One of your mails suggested to me it was useful for
> d-i, but now that I read it again I seem to have overlooked a
> "possibly".
I tested apt-cdrom add with d-i for my original patch, since the problem
I was solving was for d-i. You then asked me to change ident as
well. I did not test the ident changes with d-i, only from various tests
on the command line.
I will look at how d-i is using ident and see what the problem is.
> At least it reminds me that I have to find a way to make a testcase
> which doesn't use --no-mount as this is of course hiding the issue…
>
> Sidenote: Why are you allowing apt-cdrom to do the mounting by itself
> here if you have mounted it already and remount it after the run?
While making the code changes, the handling of no-mount seemed odd to
me, as if it was being used as some special case for some application
and was not really a general-purpose feature. And it was different for
"add" than it was for "ident". Now "ident" behaves like "add" which is
probably the problem. I thought I was fixing buggy behavior for code
that nobody used.
>> [ Also, if you're going to change semantics, it probably would be
>> nice to warn your users (e.g. -boot@ in that particular case);
>> heads-up on topics with possible big consequences are always
>> appreciated. ]
This is my fault. I should have brought up the strange behavior of
"no-mount" and asked why it was like that. In fact, there are several
things about the "no-mount" implementation that should probably be
addressed because it is quite fragile code.
John Ogness
Reply to: