Bug#596283: Freeze exception: shadow / possible cron update?
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 19:10:50 +0200, Christian Kastner wrote: On 09/19/2010 06:21 PM, Julien Cristau wrote: On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 17:21:38 +0200, Christian Kastner wrote: Assuming that #596283 will be fixed by a -2 release of shadow, I was wondering whether the Release Team would like a cron -115 as well, with this feature removed from /etc/cron.daily/standard. Sounds reasonable. I'm not sure introducing yet more 'Breaks' is necessary though. The worst case if you're using new cron and old shadow is your stuff isn't backed up, right? That is correct. However, that worst case -- however unlikely -- might be severe enough to warrant the Breaks:. I'm therefore tending towards the latter, but will leave the final call up to you. I guess the other option is to leave both backups in place for squeeze, and remove the one from cron later. A bit confusing to have those files backed up from 2 places, but no harm other than that. I think I'd like that more than Breaks... Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#596283: Freeze exception: shadow / possible cron update?
On 2010-09-21 11:49 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 19:10:50 +0200, Christian Kastner wrote: On 09/19/2010 06:21 PM, Julien Cristau wrote: On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 17:21:38 +0200, Christian Kastner wrote: Assuming that #596283 will be fixed by a -2 release of shadow, I was wondering whether the Release Team would like a cron -115 as well, with this feature removed from /etc/cron.daily/standard. Sounds reasonable. I'm not sure introducing yet more 'Breaks' is necessary though. The worst case if you're using new cron and old shadow is your stuff isn't backed up, right? That is correct. However, that worst case -- however unlikely -- might be severe enough to warrant the Breaks:. I'm therefore tending towards the latter, but will leave the final call up to you. I guess the other option is to leave both backups in place for squeeze, and remove the one from cron later. A bit confusing to have those files backed up from 2 places, but no harm other than that. I think I'd like that more than Breaks... How about letting cron depend on the new passwd package instead of breaking the old? ISTM this would have been the better action for #541415 as well. Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#596283: Freeze exception: shadow / possible cron update?
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:58:36 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: How about letting cron depend on the new passwd package instead of breaking the old? ISTM this would have been the better action for #541415 as well. Sounds like that would work. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#596283: Freeze exception: shadow / possible cron update?
On 09/21/2010 01:36 PM, Julien Cristau wrote: On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:58:36 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: How about letting cron depend on the new passwd package instead of breaking the old? ISTM this would have been the better action for #541415 as well. Sounds like that would work. TBH, I'd much rather follow your previous proposal and let both do the backups in squeeze than add a Depends: on a required package (albeit a specific version). Taking a step back, the only reason this issue is being discussed is because package cron has historically provided a service that today no one could reasonably expect from it. If I were to remove this feature from cron today, without warning or collaboration with shadow, I'd be very interested in the justification of a possible bug report (apart from rudeness :-) Given that nobody wants a Breaks:, that I don't want to depend on package passwd to ensure backups of files not related to cron, and that the situation of a no-one-backups-up, namely cron (= -115) and (passwd -2), is something that I can only see possible in theory, I think shipping cron -114 and tolerating the dual-backup-confusion for the time being is acceptable. I'd then create -115 sometime much later, with neither Depends nor Breaks. I'd actually even like to remove the present Breaks: for dpkg then, for the same reasons as stated above. Regards, Christian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#596283: Freeze exception: shadow / possible cron update?
Hi, On 08/18/2010 08:31 PM, Nicolas François wrote: * debian/passwd.cron.daily: Handle the backups of the user and group databases so that it can be removed from the standard daily cron job. Closes: #554170 I only now noticed that this version of shadow entered testing. Assuming that #596283 will be fixed by a -2 release of shadow, I was wondering whether the Release Team would like a cron -115 as well, with this feature removed from /etc/cron.daily/standard. First, let me point out that keeping both around has zero negative effects in practice, as both scripts will attempt to backup /etc/passwd et al only if the backup copy differs from the original -- ie, nothing is overwritten, as script #2 attempting to perform the backup will just skip the files already backed up by script #1. Nevertheless, this redundancy is questionable at best. Should the RT therefore wish a cron-115, I'd prepare one with a solution analogous to #541412, where backup of dpkg files was handed over to dpkg. Christian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#596283: Freeze exception: shadow / possible cron update?
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 17:21:38 +0200, Christian Kastner wrote: Assuming that #596283 will be fixed by a -2 release of shadow, I was wondering whether the Release Team would like a cron -115 as well, with this feature removed from /etc/cron.daily/standard. Sounds reasonable. I'm not sure introducing yet more 'Breaks' is necessary though. The worst case if you're using new cron and old shadow is your stuff isn't backed up, right? Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#596283: Freeze exception: shadow / possible cron update?
On 09/19/2010 06:21 PM, Julien Cristau wrote: On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 17:21:38 +0200, Christian Kastner wrote: Assuming that #596283 will be fixed by a -2 release of shadow, I was wondering whether the Release Team would like a cron -115 as well, with this feature removed from /etc/cron.daily/standard. Sounds reasonable. I'm not sure introducing yet more 'Breaks' is necessary though. The worst case if you're using new cron and old shadow is your stuff isn't backed up, right? That is correct. However, that worst case -- however unlikely -- might be severe enough to warrant the Breaks:. I'm therefore tending towards the latter, but will leave the final call up to you. Christian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
