Bug#279232: What about perl-bug #279232?
# let's have this on both
reassign 279232 perl,doc-base
thanks
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:25:06PM +1000, Brendan O'Dea wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:36:05AM +0200, Henning Glawe wrote:
it could be fixed by introducing a versioned pre-dependency of
perl-modules on perl-base while letting perl-base conflict with too old
perl-modules, which forces apt to update both packages together; this
combination may be highly unstable (conflicts+pre-depends is a loop-like
construct), but results in the right behaviour.
Given an alternate option I'd really rather not do this. It seems
fragile at best, disasterous at worst.
I would be terrified of accepting a change like this into sarge. It
seems to me that it would have very complex and probably undesirable
effects on upgrades, causing large swathes of packages to be
deconfigured.
Given the recent freeze announcement, I'd suggest that regardless of
what other fixes are made, a good first step would be to get a fixed
doc-base (i.e. one that works with the current stable perl-base only)
package into stable-proposed-updates *now*.
If nothing else, this reduces the size of the problem if there's a point
release prior to sarge.
I agree. Also, having a doc-base in sarge that's fixed in the way you
describe means that we shouldn't have this particular incarnation of the
problem again, and it would mean that at least we could tell people in
the release notes to upgrade doc-base first. I think that would be
acceptable as far as sarge is concerned.
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 at 11:11:38PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 02:03:23PM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
install-docs should be shipped not executable in doc-base .deb and
doc-base postinst should a+x it. (and prerm should a-x it).
This wouldn't help. doc-base doesn't need to be touched at all for the
bug to appear. Perl gets itself in a non-working state...
You've said this a couple of times, but I don't think that's true at
all. Everything here seems to be working exactly the way it's been told
to work, and certainly perl appears to be doing nothing wrong.
/usr/bin/perl is working just fine (it's essential, and works even when
unconfigured the way it's supposed to). All modules in perl-base work
fine too. However, File::Basename is in perl-modules, which is not
essential, and therefore in order to ensure that it is usable you *must*
declare a dependency on it (or just on perl, as would be more usual).
This is all perfectly normal and in accordance with policy.
The problem is that the packages that call install-docs do so
opportunistically (only if it's available), and so they do not declare a
dependency on perl or doc-base. Thus, there is *no way* for them to make
sure that install-docs is actually usable; it may be unpacked but not
configured. Once the doc-base package enters the configured state, dpkg
will have made sure that perl is configured too (as per the definition
of Depends) and so install-docs will work fine. Bill's suggestion would
therefore fix this bug, although I haven't quite decided whether it's
more complicated than just making doc-base work with only essential
packages. I could go either way.
The following patch to doc-base avoids the use of File::Basename, so it
should work with only perl-base. I've tested the substituted functions
independently, but I have not yet tested the resulting package. Caveat
emptor. Bill's suggestion should definitely be tried out too, since it
would probably involve less code.
diff -Nru /tmp/At5JVh70EG/doc-base-0.7.18/debian/changelog
/tmp/KqzthCt2IB/doc-base-0.7.18.1/debian/changelog
--- /tmp/At5JVh70EG/doc-base-0.7.18/debian/changelog2003-03-30
18:14:12.0 +0100
+++ /tmp/KqzthCt2IB/doc-base-0.7.18.1/debian/changelog 2005-05-07
14:49:49.0 +0100
@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+doc-base (0.7.18.1) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
+
+ * Non-maintainer upload.
+ * Avoid File::Basename, in order to work even when perl is unconfigured
+(closes: #278495).
+
+ -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat, 7 May 2005 14:49:47 +0100
+
doc-base (0.7.18) unstable; urgency=low
* postinst: don't die if /usr/lib/menu doesn't exist; closes: #186707
diff -Nru /tmp/At5JVh70EG/doc-base-0.7.18/install-docs
/tmp/KqzthCt2IB/doc-base-0.7.18.1/install-docs
--- /tmp/At5JVh70EG/doc-base-0.7.18/install-docs2003-03-15
22:08:38.0 +
+++ /tmp/KqzthCt2IB/doc-base-0.7.18.1/install-docs 2005-05-07
14:49:45.0 +0100
@@ -16,7 +16,28 @@
# ---end-of-configuration-part---
-use File::Basename;
+# This would normally be just 'use File::Basename;'. However, install-docs
+# often gets called opportunistically by packages if it's present, and
+# there's no way for those packages to make sure that perl is configured
+# when doing so, so it's possible that standard modules will not be usable.
+
+sub basename {
+ (my $basename = $_[0]) =~ s#.*/##s;
+ return $basename;
+}
+
+sub dirname {
+ my ($dirname, $basename)
Bug#278495: Bug#279232: What about perl-bug #279232?
On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 03:12:54PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: Given the recent freeze announcement, I'd suggest that regardless of what other fixes are made, a good first step would be to get a fixed doc-base (i.e. one that works with the current stable perl-base only) package into stable-proposed-updates *now*. If nothing else, this reduces the size of the problem if there's a point release prior to sarge. I agree. Also, having a doc-base in sarge that's fixed in the way you describe means that we shouldn't have this particular incarnation of the problem again, and it would mean that at least we could tell people in the release notes to upgrade doc-base first. I think that would be acceptable as far as sarge is concerned. I agree that requiring upgrade of doc-base first (along with the handful of other packages we currently recommend upgrading first) is acceptable. This wouldn't help. doc-base doesn't need to be touched at all for the bug to appear. Perl gets itself in a non-working state... You've said this a couple of times, but I don't think that's true at all. Everything here seems to be working exactly the way it's been told to work, and certainly perl appears to be doing nothing wrong. Well, http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=279232msg=44 provided a pointer back to Bill's upgrade test at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/04/msg01110.html, suggesting that this problem also hits defoma. FWIW, gs-common in both sarge and woody depends on defoma, and defoma depends on perl; and the problematic call to defoma-app happens in the prerm script, which means that perl *should* still be in a configured state at this point. For gsfonts, the failure happens in the postrm script of the woody package. In the sarge version, the font unregistering is (correctly) done in the prerm, so this should not be an issue -- if we can figure out why File::Copy isn't being found in the prerm. The problem is that the packages that call install-docs do so opportunistically (only if it's available), and so they do not declare a dependency on perl or doc-base. Thus, there is *no way* for them to make sure that install-docs is actually usable; it may be unpacked but not configured. Once the doc-base package enters the configured state, dpkg will have made sure that perl is configured too (as per the definition of Depends) and so install-docs will work fine. Bill's suggestion would therefore fix this bug, although I haven't quite decided whether it's more complicated than just making doc-base work with only essential packages. I could go either way. IMHO, Bill's fix is more complicated. Most packages (i.e., those using debhelper) do check for executability of install-docs via which, but at least some of them use command -v, which means either finding and fixing those packages or creating a wrapper script; and using such a wrapper script would then make it impossible for packages or other scripts to directly handle errors from install-docs if this was their intent. Since either fix would require woody users to upgrade doc-base before dist-upgrading to sarge, I would prefer the more robust solution of making install-docs work with only essential packages installed. The following patch to doc-base avoids the use of File::Basename, so it should work with only perl-base. I've tested the substituted functions independently, but I have not yet tested the resulting package. Caveat emptor. Bill's suggestion should definitely be tried out too, since it would probably involve less code. All things considered, I think the amount of code involved is about the same. :) Long-term, it would be nice if there were a way for a package to have a simple way to test whether another package is configured, to supersede all these 'test -x' calls; perhaps a trivial wrapper around dpkg-query provided by dpkg in order that everyone does it the same way. Hmm, yes, agreed... -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#279232: What about perl-bug #279232?
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:36:05AM +0200, Henning Glawe wrote: it could be fixed by introducing a versioned pre-dependency of perl-modules on perl-base while letting perl-base conflict with too old perl-modules, which forces apt to update both packages together; this combination may be highly unstable (conflicts+pre-depends is a loop-like construct), but results in the right behaviour. Given an alternate option I'd really rather not do this. It seems fragile at best, disasterous at worst. Given the recent freeze announcement, I'd suggest that regardless of what other fixes are made, a good first step would be to get a fixed doc-base (i.e. one that works with the current stable perl-base only) package into stable-proposed-updates *now*. If nothing else, this reduces the size of the problem if there's a point release prior to sarge. --bod -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#279232: What about perl-bug #279232?
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:25:06PM +1000, Brendan O'Dea wrote: it could be fixed by introducing a versioned pre-dependency of perl-modules on perl-base while letting perl-base conflict with too old perl-modules, which forces apt to update both packages together; this combination may be highly unstable (conflicts+pre-depends is a loop-like construct), but results in the right behaviour. Given an alternate option I'd really rather not do this. It seems fragile at best, disasterous at worst. thats what I also said in the comments... Given the recent freeze announcement, I'd suggest that regardless of what other fixes are made, a good first step would be to get a fixed doc-base (i.e. one that works with the current stable perl-base only) package into stable-proposed-updates *now*. won't help: Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 19:48:00 +0200 To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Subject: woody-to-sarge test upgrade From: Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] seems like he's been bitten by this bug in connection with defoma If nothing else, this reduces the size of the problem if there's a point release prior to sarge. maybe, maybe not: perl itself is in an unusable state during the update... -- c u henning -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#279232: What about perl-bug #279232
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 08:09:31PM +0200, Henning Glawe wrote: Moin, bug #279232 is assigned to doc-base, though it is (as to my analysis) a perl problem (see the thread in the BTS). This prevents clean dist-upgrades from woody to sarge. what do you think about the solution (using pre-depends and conflicts)? install-docs should be shipped not executable in doc-base .deb and doc-base postinst should a+x it. (and prerm should a-x it). This way packages will not be able to use it before it is configured properly. If some package do not check if install-docs is executable before calling it we will need to divert it to install-docs.real and add a script /usr/sbin/install-docs like: #! /bin/sh if test -x /usr/sbin/install-docs.real; then exec /usr/sbin/install-docs $@ fi Cheers -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#279232: What about perl-bug #279232
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 02:03:23PM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote: On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 08:09:31PM +0200, Henning Glawe wrote: Moin, bug #279232 is assigned to doc-base, though it is (as to my analysis) a perl problem (see the thread in the BTS). This prevents clean dist-upgrades from woody to sarge. what do you think about the solution (using pre-depends and conflicts)? install-docs should be shipped not executable in doc-base .deb and doc-base postinst should a+x it. (and prerm should a-x it). This wouldn't help. doc-base doesn't need to be touched at all for the bug to appear. Perl gets itself in a non-working state... /me will now finally reassign the bug to prevent more confusion Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.djpig.de/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
