Good job! Thanks a lot, Andreas. On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 08:23:56PM +0100, Étienne Mollier wrote: > Hi Nilesh, > > Nilesh Patra, on 2021-01-12 23:39:20 +0530: > > However, any idea as to why the corresponding salsa CI on piuparts fails? > > > > https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/qcumber/-/jobs/1332459 > > This issue appears in the upgrade test from previous installed > qcumber version. It is based on upgrading from the 2.3.0-1, > which has the different and faulty /etc/qcumber/config.txt file. > Dpkg detects this difference upon upgrade and requests the user > for input, which fails the test. I think this is a good clue to > detect whether NEWS items are required to document changes in > configuration, but shouldn't be blocking, since configuration > items in lots of packages may evolve from time to time. > > Trying to recognize the faulty config file and modify it, if not > done right, I could potentially alter local changes, something > forbidden by the policy[1]. What's what I wanted to avoid, but > prepared in a preinst script just in case[2]; note that this one > did not fail the piuparts Salsa CI test[3]. > > [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#behavior > [2] > https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/qcumber/-/blob/qcumber-2.3.0-1-preinst/debian/preinst > [3] https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/qcumber/-/jobs/1332470 > > This 2.3.0-1 never made it into Testing, so I think this issue > shouldn't impede upgrade paths from Buster or Testing. Indeed, > users of Unstable may have to examine the situation on upgrade. > > In any case, Thanks for asking! :) > In hope this clarifies things, > -- > Étienne Mollier <[email protected]> > Fingerprint: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c 8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da > Sent from /dev/pts/0, please excuse my verbosity.
-- http://fam-tille.de
