On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 01:20:14AM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 01:03:36 +0100, Stefan Lippers-Hollmann wrote: > > > On Saturday 17 January 2015, gregor herrmann wrote: > > > I've prepared an NMU for lirc (versioned as 0.9.0~pre1-1.2) and > > > uploaded it to DELAYED/2. Please feel free to tell me if I > > > should delay it longer. > > First of all, I acknowledge the NMU - thanks a lot, go ahead as you > > wish, but... > > Thanks! > > > I don't object to the patch, but it doesn't really help with this bug. > > The bug itself only happens when dist-upgrading from squeeze to wheezy, > > neither wheezy, jessie or wheezy-->jessie upgrades are affected at all, > > so fixing this bug in jessie doesn't help any squeeze user who's just > > now starting to look at dist-upgrading to wheezy at all. > > I thought the same too, when looking at the bug, but my tests were > quite interesting: > - squeeze chroot, lirc-x installed > - updated to wheezy - here the bug occurs > - updated to jessie with the patched package: here the problem gets > fixed > > So my conclusion is that the fix does help people who upgraded from > squeeze (but it's indeed not necessary for people who install(ed) > only the wheezy or jessie version).
That's correct. This class of bugs affects older installations that are dist-upgraded through. We don't support skipping releases, but we do support upgrading through releases. The problem occurs because dpkg will *never* replace an existing symlink with a new directory or vice-versa. However, the files do get written, following the symlink. For packages that are a mixture of arch:any and arch:all, and where files are slightly different depending on architecture, this can be a real headache. It may have been caused in Wheezy, but it still needs fixing in Jessie. > > Therefore I'm curious, what is your plan with this bugfix? > > Asking the release team for a jessie unblock doesn't really meet the > > unblock criteria anymore, as the bug doesn't affect jessie nor wheezy > > to jessie dist-upgrades (actually, had this bug been reported and fixed > > in time before the wheezy release, I would have already removed this > > kind of pre-wheezy upgrade support from the packages intended for > > jessie). > > I'll let Jonathan answer this question; but since he uploaded the > same fix I'd assume that the release team will unblock the package :) I assure you that RC bugs affecting Jessie are still candidates for unblocks :) > > > This piuparts mass bug filing imho would have better concentrated on > > just wheezy to jessie issues, rather than murkying the waters by > > including squeeze-->wheezy issues as well, that ship has sailed long > > time ago. > > I'm also a bit ambivalent about the value of those > squeeze->wheezy->jessie upgrade tests where many issues just can't be > fixed anymore. But unless I'm confusing something in my test setup, > this is a case where a fix in jessie "repairs" a problem introduced > earlier. Indeed, and where this occurs in /usr/share/doc it's not really worth fixing in stable, but should be sorted out where we can. -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature