On Mon, 2021-09-27 at 12:38 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > Control: tags -1 + confirmed d-i >
To confirm some IRC conversations - given the closeness of the freeze for 11.1, please feel free to upload and kibi can review the package from stable-new. Regards, Adam > Control: fixed 994042 2.32-3 > > Hi, > > On Sun, 2021-09-26 at 22:16 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 2021-09-26 20:46, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > > On Tue, 2021-09-21 at 23:47 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > > [...] > > > > In the meantime another issue that would need to be fixed in > > > > sid > > > > > > came > > > > as > > > > bug#994042. > > > > > > > > This time the issue is in the preinst. To summarize, in the > > > > case > > > > debconf is not usable to prompt the user about the upgrade, the > > > > preinst switches to text prompt. However as the debconf module > > > > has > > > > been loaded got control of the tty, which prevent any input > > > > from > > > > the > > > > user. For skilled users it still possible to kill the upgrade > > > > from > > > > another, but other users will probably try other actions that > > > > might > > > > have damaging effects (like rebooting the system). > > > > > > > > The fix is to get the debconf configuration without using the > > > > debconf > > > > module, as suggested by Colin Watson. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. That looks OK to me, particularly with Colin's review. > > > > Thanks for the review. I guess that now it just needs a kibi-ack. > > Yep; re-tagging accordingly. > > > > Is there an ETA for getting the fix into unstable? > > > > Upgrades from buster to bookworm are not supported, so it means > > upgrade > > to bookworm starts from bullseye, which has a fixed debconf (the > > issue > > has been fixed in version 1.5.76). Therefore the fix in unstable > > has > > been done in glibc 2.32-3 by just dropping all the workaround: > > > > https://salsa.debian.org/glibc-team/glibc/-/commit/66359576b1aa793ae6c79618b188738287cf8789 > > Aha, thanks for connecting the dots. I was misled / confused slightly > by the lack of fixed versions on #994042, where the version tracking > implies that unstable is still affected, and > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994042;msg=33 not > indicating which branch the fix was on (I realise I {c,sh}ould have > checked). I've added a fixed version based on your explanation above; > hopefully that makes the status clearer. > > Regards, > > Adam > >