Re: Scary message on new installations
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 10:03:25AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 11:43:27PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > appropriate here than in other cases. Is there some concern about > > apt-listchanges not listing NEWS files for newly-installed packages? > > IME, it only lists NEWS.Debian files on upgrades... Mine as well. I had a ton of clueless users early on in the transition to 7.0 because I had documented things in NEWS.Debian, which they were never shown because the package was new. I don't want to go down that road again. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scary message on new installations
On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 11:43:27PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > appropriate here than in other cases. Is there some concern about > apt-listchanges not listing NEWS files for newly-installed packages? IME, it only lists NEWS.Debian files on upgrades... -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scary message on new installations
On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 04:53:56PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 12:06:16AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 08:48:31AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 04:05:26PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > Since this warning note has been added specifically because the xserver > > > > is > > > > being removed in situations we don't want it to, and the removal is > > > > being > > > > caused by a new package that didn't exist in sarge, it is indeed very > > > > difficult to detect the difference between an upgrade and a new install. > > > > For d-i's purposes, preseeding this d-i note into oblivion is an > > > > option, but > > > > it would be much nicer if someone could figure out how to keep the > > > > xserver > > > > from being removed on upgrade in the first place. > > > Would putting back xserver-xfree86 as a transitional package suffice? > > > Since > > > I don't know how to reproduce this problem locally, my best guess is that > > > the server gets removed due to the conflict with x11-common and then > > > nothing is able to install the new one because xserver-xorg doesn't exist > > > to be marked for upgrade. Putting back an empty xserver-xfree86 that pulls > > > in xserver-xorg should suffice in this corner case, letting us remove the > > > note all together. > > It is still valid for aptitude to remove xserver-xfree86, even as a > > transitional package, if the old version is conflicted with. There's > > nothing in our packaging system that lets you mark a particular package as > > "not to be removed on upgrade". A dummy xserver-xfree86 package may fix > > this for most users, though. > Right, but it might be a sufficient hint so that aptitude, and maybe apt, > will do the right thing. This change *will* be sufficient to allow aptitude and apt to do the right thing *in a greater number of cases*. Just how large a coverage this will give, I can't say -- the only good way to find out is to try it and see what upgrade testers have to say about it. > Ok... I'll lower the priority of the note to medium and add the > xserver-xfree86 dummy package. Hopefully that'll be sufficient. As > discussed elsewhere, I'd prefer to use NEWS.Debian, but it won't be shown > to the user in this case, so a medium priority debconf abusing note should > suffice. What do you mean, "in this case"? I don't see why NEWS.Debian is any less appropriate here than in other cases. Is there some concern about apt-listchanges not listing NEWS files for newly-installed packages? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scary message on new installations
On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 12:06:16AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 08:48:31AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 04:05:26PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > Since this warning note has been added specifically because the xserver is > > > being removed in situations we don't want it to, and the removal is being > > > caused by a new package that didn't exist in sarge, it is indeed very > > > difficult to detect the difference between an upgrade and a new install. > > > > For d-i's purposes, preseeding this d-i note into oblivion is an option, > > > but > > > it would be much nicer if someone could figure out how to keep the xserver > > > from being removed on upgrade in the first place. > > > Would putting back xserver-xfree86 as a transitional package suffice? Since > > I don't know how to reproduce this problem locally, my best guess is that > > the server gets removed due to the conflict with x11-common and then > > nothing is able to install the new one because xserver-xorg doesn't exist > > to be marked for upgrade. Putting back an empty xserver-xfree86 that pulls > > in xserver-xorg should suffice in this corner case, letting us remove the > > note all together. > > It is still valid for aptitude to remove xserver-xfree86, even as a > transitional package, if the old version is conflicted with. There's > nothing in our packaging system that lets you mark a particular package as > "not to be removed on upgrade". A dummy xserver-xfree86 package may fix > this for most users, though. Right, but it might be a sufficient hint so that aptitude, and maybe apt, will do the right thing. Ok... I'll lower the priority of the note to medium and add the xserver-xfree86 dummy package. Hopefully that'll be sufficient. As discussed elsewhere, I'd prefer to use NEWS.Debian, but it won't be shown to the user in this case, so a medium priority debconf abusing note should suffice. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scary message on new installations
On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 12:06:16AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 08:48:31AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > > Would putting back xserver-xfree86 as a transitional package suffice? Since > > I don't know how to reproduce this problem locally, my best guess is that > > the server gets removed due to the conflict with x11-common and then > > nothing is able to install the new one because xserver-xorg doesn't exist > > to be marked for upgrade. Putting back an empty xserver-xfree86 that pulls > > in xserver-xorg should suffice in this corner case, letting us remove the > > note all together. > > It is still valid for aptitude to remove xserver-xfree86, even as a > transitional package, if the old version is conflicted with. There's > nothing in our packaging system that lets you mark a particular package as > "not to be removed on upgrade". A dummy xserver-xfree86 package may fix > this for most users, though. Bugreport #372077 has now this information also. I hope this helps, Geert Stappers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scary message on new installations
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 08:48:31AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 04:05:26PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Since this warning note has been added specifically because the xserver is > > being removed in situations we don't want it to, and the removal is being > > caused by a new package that didn't exist in sarge, it is indeed very > > difficult to detect the difference between an upgrade and a new install. > > For d-i's purposes, preseeding this d-i note into oblivion is an option, but > > it would be much nicer if someone could figure out how to keep the xserver > > from being removed on upgrade in the first place. > Would putting back xserver-xfree86 as a transitional package suffice? Since > I don't know how to reproduce this problem locally, my best guess is that > the server gets removed due to the conflict with x11-common and then > nothing is able to install the new one because xserver-xorg doesn't exist > to be marked for upgrade. Putting back an empty xserver-xfree86 that pulls > in xserver-xorg should suffice in this corner case, letting us remove the > note all together. It is still valid for aptitude to remove xserver-xfree86, even as a transitional package, if the old version is conflicted with. There's nothing in our packaging system that lets you mark a particular package as "not to be removed on upgrade". A dummy xserver-xfree86 package may fix this for most users, though. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Scary message on new installations
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 04:05:26PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > Since this warning note has been added specifically because the xserver is > being removed in situations we don't want it to, and the removal is being > caused by a new package that didn't exist in sarge, it is indeed very > difficult to detect the difference between an upgrade and a new install. > > For d-i's purposes, preseeding this d-i note into oblivion is an option, but > it would be much nicer if someone could figure out how to keep the xserver > from being removed on upgrade in the first place. Would putting back xserver-xfree86 as a transitional package suffice? Since I don't know how to reproduce this problem locally, my best guess is that the server gets removed due to the conflict with x11-common and then nothing is able to install the new one because xserver-xorg doesn't exist to be marked for upgrade. Putting back an empty xserver-xfree86 that pulls in xserver-xorg should suffice in this corner case, letting us remove the note all together. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scary message on new installations
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 06:57:37AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > (I think that a crosspost to -boot is deserved here) > Quoting Frans Pop ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > On Tuesday 20 June 2006 14:15, Frans Pop wrote: > > > Currently X shows a very scary message that upgrades may go wrong > > > (template: x11-common/upgrade_issues) on new installations. > > Note that Joey Hess filed this as http://bugs.debian.org/372077 a while > > back. We are currently considering upgrading that to RC as we feel we > > cannot release D-I Beta3 wile this note is still being displayed for new > > installations. > > A reaction would be appreciated. > David indeed reacted to a very similar message I posted (see below for > my message and answers). > My understanding is that David doesn't actually know how to handle > this properly to be sure about warning when users upgrade (which seems > important). > I agree that this should be RC in D-I point of view. We certainly > cannot ship with that message displayed on every default install. Since this warning note has been added specifically because the xserver is being removed in situations we don't want it to, and the removal is being caused by a new package that didn't exist in sarge, it is indeed very difficult to detect the difference between an upgrade and a new install. For d-i's purposes, preseeding this d-i note into oblivion is an option, but it would be much nicer if someone could figure out how to keep the xserver from being removed on upgrade in the first place. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Scary message on new installations
(I think that a crosspost to -boot is deserved here) Quoting Frans Pop ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > On Tuesday 20 June 2006 14:15, Frans Pop wrote: > > Currently X shows a very scary message that upgrades may go wrong > > (template: x11-common/upgrade_issues) on new installations. > > Note that Joey Hess filed this as http://bugs.debian.org/372077 a while > back. We are currently considering upgrading that to RC as we feel we > cannot release D-I Beta3 wile this note is still being displayed for new > installations. > > A reaction would be appreciated. David indeed reacted to a very similar message I posted (see below for my message and answers). My understanding is that David doesn't actually know how to handle this properly to be sure about warning when users upgrade (which seems important). I agree that this should be RC in D-I point of view. We certainly cannot ship with that message displayed on every default install. (personal note: too bad that I'm actually too busy at work and home to meet David who's currently in Paris.:-|) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 21:49:04 +0200 From: Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: debian-x@lists.debian.org Subject: Annoying warning note in fresh installs I was today testing the fresh install of Etch with the desktop task (D-I related work) and I have been very surprised to see the warning note about "possible problems during the major upgrade". I seem to remember reading Steve Langasek (this was actually Joey Hess) mentioning this, but this is something that definitely should go away, at least on fresh installs..:-) David Nusinow's answer: Right, I don't like it but I don't have a clean fix for it yet. The reason being that x11-common didn't exist in sarge so I can't simply check for an upgrade. Ideally I would look for xserver-common being on the system and put the note up in that case, but that package should be removed prior to x11-common's preinst being run due to the conflicts line. Maybe just checking for libx11 would get around it. Alternately, I think joeyh suggested looking for a running X server for the fix (that may be for a different bug though) but I don't think that's an optimal solution for this problem. Fundamentally, I need to check to see exactly what's in the sarge X packages to find out what we could look for. Joey Hess contribution later: If you don't mind depending on people upgrading with apt (rather than using dpkg directly), you could do the check in the config script, which will run before anything is removed in a dist-upgrade. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
