Re: Purposely broken/uninstallable packages in archive
Junichi Uekawa [EMAIL PROTECTED] immo vero scripsit A note. Good. Send me a patch. I will apply it. ... after woody, probably. It has been there since potato, and I don't think I will make a last minute change to a package. This is, IMO a bogus bug. Go and fix a real bug. There are enough already. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
Re: Purposely broken/uninstallable packages in archive
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 02:20:31PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: This is, IMO a bogus bug. Go and fix a real bug. There are enough already. A package that will do grave damage to your system if installed is not a real bug? -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org When the aliens come, when the deathrays hum, when the bombers bomb, we'll still be freakin' friends. - Freakin' Friends
Re: Purposely broken/uninstallable packages in archive
severity 112723 critical thanks David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] immo vero scripsit On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 02:20:31PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: This is, IMO a bogus bug. Go and fix a real bug. There are enough already. A package that will do grave damage to your system if installed is not a real bug? Define grave damage. But yes, a machine will not boot after installing this package. Maybe this was a grave bug after all. I am overloaded at the moment, and if someone can play around and test this thing, any help would be appreciated. I am thinking of something in the line of building the .deb file and installing it somewhere in /usr/lib/diskless/ regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
Re: Purposely broken/uninstallable packages in archive
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 03:16:13PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:01:24AM -0400, Norbert Veber wrote: packages such as diskless-image-secure, diskless-image-simple, xfsprogs-bf, e2fsprogs-bf should automatically qualify for grave or even critical bugs for breaking your system if installed. read the description for xfsprogs-bf and e2fsprogs-bf, your NOT SUPPOSED to install them. we need them for boot-floppies. with at least the -bf packages the user has to explicity type `yes please wreck my system' or something like that into apt before it will proceed, if they are that determined to shoot thier own foot, let them. If its not to be installed, it should not be in the archive. This is like going to a restaurant and being told not to eat a certain dish under any circumstances because you'll get food poisoning.. :) Clearly these pacakges are 'data' files, and should be treated as such. They could just as easily be .tar files (or any format, including .deb) inside of an INSTALLABLE .deb.. Thanks, Norbert pgphJKl5Oqtls.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Purposely broken/uninstallable packages in archive
On 19-Sep-01, 18:16 (CDT), Ethan Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: read the description for xfsprogs-bf and e2fsprogs-bf, your NOT SUPPOSED to install them. we need them for boot-floppies. Fine. Why are they in the main archive? If it's so that the bf can access them over the net, then they can and should go into a special archive. Steve -- Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Purposely broken/uninstallable packages in archive
#include hallo.h Norbert Veber wrote on Thu Sep 20, 2001 um 09:58:16AM: If its not to be installed, it should not be in the archive. This is like going to a restaurant and being told not to eat a certain dish under any circumstances because you'll get food poisoning.. :) What is the problem? The -bf versions are either not dangerous, or the conflict with their big brothers which are essential (like e2fsprogs), so they cannot be installed unless the user has been warned explicitely. And even then, some people maybe want to install the reduced-size packages because of small harddisk or so (like parted-bf). Gruss/Regards, Eduard. -- Diese Message wurde erstellt mit freundlicher Unterstützung eines frei- laufenden Pinguins aus artgerechter Freilandhaltung. Er ist garantiert frei von Micro$oft'schen Viren. pgpxlAp91e5Gx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Purposely broken/uninstallable packages in archive
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 09:58:16AM -0400, Norbert Veber wrote: If its not to be installed, it should not be in the archive. This is like going to a restaurant and being told not to eat a certain dish under any circumstances because you'll get food poisoning.. :) Clearly these pacakges are 'data' files, and should be treated as such. They could just as easily be .tar files (or any format, including .deb) inside of an INSTALLABLE .deb.. do you want boot-floppies or not? because that won't work with boot-floppies. until the next release after woody when debian-installer may become viable you have to live with these -bf packages as they currently exist. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/ pgpxi2U3XK3cG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Purposely broken/uninstallable packages in archive
Norbert == Norbert Veber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Norbert From the description of diskless-image-simple: WARNING: Norbert This package can and will break your computer. Do not Norbert install manually. It should only be installed via the Norbert diskless-newimage, part of the diskless package. Norbert Why are such things allowed into the archive? Will these Norbert things ever even make it into testing given that they are Norbert uninstallable? Hello, I no longer maintain diskless-*, but I originally came up with this idea, so thought I probably should justify my (perhaps broken grin) reasons here. IIRC, I posted my reasons on this mailing list previously, surprisingly though, nobody responded. Norbert IMHO. this is a completelly wrong way of going about Norbert this. These packages contain data used by other Not quite. It is a package that is designed to get installed on a NFS-root image, in order to setup the root image in such a way to facilitate booting on a remote machine. I made it a *.deb package, because that allows you to use apt-get to automatically upgrade the package on a *nfs root* partition to the latest version. Not only that, but the postinst scripts and postrm scripts will automatically run, setting up the base directories (especially the case for diskless-image-secure) using symlinks, etc, required for the image (I can't remember now what it does, it has been ages). That means, completely different image layouts can be archived (at least in theory) only by changing the diskless-image-* package. In practise, it might be perfectly safe to install on a normal partition. Just that there is no point. Also you run the risk that if installation is interrupted at any time, it will only be half done, resulting it, say, /var not existing any more (as IIRC, it gets moved in order to replace it with a symlink). So, why run the risk only to get a very non-standard system if there is no benefit? Hence the warning. In fact, I think there is a primitive check inside the postinst script to ensure it isn't installed unless everything looks OK. Perhaps a better way would be to somehow include the deb packages in diskless.deb, and somehow upgrade them from diskless.deb. This is something I was thinking of at the time, but instead gave up maintainership of the package, since I no longer have time to play around with diskless systems. Anyway, I hope this helps explain the situation a bit better. It is now up to Junichi Uekawa [EMAIL PROTECTED] (the new maintainer) to answer the ifs, whats, whens, and whys about dealing with this bug report. -- Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Purposely broken/uninstallable packages in archive
In Wed, 19 Sep 2001 11:01:24 -0400 Norbert cum veritate scripsit : Why are such things allowed into the archive? Will these things ever even make it into testing given that they are uninstallable? diskless-image-secure | 0.3.6 |stable | all diskless-image-secure | 0.3.15 | testing | all diskless-image-secure | 0.3.15 | unstable | all IMHO. this is a completelly wrong way of going about this. These packages contain data used by other packages. This is not uncommon, many packages have a -common or -data package to go with them. This is a special case because the data is in the format of a .deb. I suggest then that diskless-image-simple and friends should be packages that contain the .deb files. Ie. there is no reason one cannot have a harmless diskless-image-simple that contains another .deb as data. This second .deb can then be used by the diskless package to setup its chroot. Good. Send me a patch. I will apply it. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4
Re: Purposely broken/uninstallable packages in archive
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:01:24AM -0400, Norbert Veber wrote: packages such as diskless-image-secure, diskless-image-simple, xfsprogs-bf, e2fsprogs-bf should automatically qualify for grave or even critical bugs for breaking your system if installed. read the description for xfsprogs-bf and e2fsprogs-bf, your NOT SUPPOSED to install them. we need them for boot-floppies. with at least the -bf packages the user has to explicity type `yes please wreck my system' or something like that into apt before it will proceed, if they are that determined to shoot thier own foot, let them. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/ pgp6ddkqrcUEp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Purposely broken/uninstallable packages in archive
Em Wed, 19 Sep 2001 11:01:24 -0400 Norbert Veber [EMAIL PROTECTED] escreveu: It looks like more and more of these are popping up. It seems to me that by the way, I think we're losing lots of the benefits our release/test cycle is suppose to give us... I see many people making last-hour changes and rapdly upgrading the upstream version of their packages so that they'll reach woody's release these packages are missing lots of testing major changes and version upgrades should not be left to the last months of the cycle IMHO... I am writing here so that this can be discussed. I filed grave bugs on some of these packages which were imediatelly downgraded by their respective maintainers to a wishlist severity, and tagged wontfix. that's abuse IMO if the bugs are real bugs... []s! -- Gustavo Noronha Silva - kov http://www.metainfo.org/kov ** | .''`. | Debian GNU/Linux: http://www.debian.org| | : :' : | Debian BR...: http://debian-br.sourceforge.net | | `. `'` | Be Happy! Be FREE! | | `-| Think globally, act locally! | **
