Bug#299927: debtags future unclear
On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 01:24:52PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > control: tags -1 +moreinfo > control: affects -1 debtags > thanks > > hi, > > https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20221019132043.d4c4liyt6s6qe...@enricozini.org > and > https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/bb7064071ebd838a9e045a1916bba49a9b960d80.ca...@debian.org > indicate that debtags.debian.org might be shutdown after the release > of bookworm, thus tagging this bug moreinfo for now, as there's not > much point documenting something which is going away. It seems this concerns only the debtags.debian.org website, not the whole debgtags system, right ? Cheers, -- Bill. Imagine a large red swirl here.
Bug#801065: Documenting how to not fail postinst on service fails to starto
On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 06:39:08PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > Note that the TC declining to rule on an issue does not override the policy > group right to make > a determination on that issue. So we are back to the situation before the > referral to the TC. do you think #801065 should be assigned from developers-reference to debian-policy? -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ It's climate crime, not climate change. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#801065: consent unclear
On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 06:13:32PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > not only based on that, but way more importantly that this would change > > *years* of existing practice. > Could you clarify which 'existing practices' ? how Debian packages behaved in the last decades. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ The wrong Amazon is burning. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#801065: Documenting how to not fail postinst on service fails to starto
O#n Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 04:47:37PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > retitle -1 turn #904558 into advice - how postinst should deal with failures > thanks > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 09:26:58AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote: > > The TC bug is 904558. > > thank you very much for this pointer, that's a pretty good discussion, > which resulted in > > - > > So, the TC declines to rule on what should maintscripts do when failing > to > (re)start a service (or otherwise encountering a similarly serious > problem). > > - > (read the full result at > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=904558#137 ) Note that the TC declining to rule on an issue does not override the policy group right to make a determination on that issue. So we are back to the situation before the referral to the TC. Cheers, -- Bill. Imagine a large red swirl here.
Processed: Re: Processed (with 1 error): Re: Bug#801065: Documenting how to not fail postinst on service fails to start
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > retitle 801065 turn #904558 into advice - how postinst should deal with > failures Bug #801065 [developers-reference] Section 6.4 - discourage failing install or upgrade when service fails to start Changed Bug title to 'turn #904558 into advice - how postinst should deal with failures' from 'Section 6.4 - discourage failing install or upgrade when service fails to start'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 801065: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=801065 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#801065: consent unclear
On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 03:54:22PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > hi, > > btw, as pointed out on irc: I ment consensus, not consent. :) > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 10:36:02AM -0500, Marvin Renich wrote: > > > I don't think there has been consent on the issue, thus I'm tagging it > > > moreinfo. > > > > > > I'm also wondering whether to mark this bug as wontfix (until there is > > > consent) or to reassign to debian-policy or simply to close it. > > > > I disagree. Re-reading the messages to the bug report, We have > > "strongly support" from Sam Hartman, and "also in favor" from Russ > > Allbery and Bill Allombert. > > > > The only objection was from Henrique de Moraes Holschuh based on lack of > > risk assessment from the mistaken impression > > not only based on that, but way more importantly that this would change > *years* of existing practice. Could you clarify which 'existing practices' ? Cheers, -- Bill. Imagine a large red swirl here.
Bug#801065: Documenting how to not fail postinst on service fails to start
retitle -1 turn #904558 into advice - how postinst should deal with failures thanks On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 09:26:58AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote: > The TC bug is 904558. thank you very much for this pointer, that's a pretty good discussion, which resulted in - So, the TC declines to rule on what should maintscripts do when failing to (re)start a service (or otherwise encountering a similarly serious problem). - (read the full result at https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=904558#137 ) so I still think "#801065 discourage failing install or upgrade when service fails to start" is the wrong recommendation for dev-ref. That said, I'd still appreciate a patch that conveys the gist of #904558. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ The apocalypse is here now, it’s just not equally distributed. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#801065: Documenting how to not fail postinst on service fails to start
The TC bug is 904558. Busy with day job now.
Bug#801065: Documenting how to not fail postinst on service fails to start
> "Holger" == Holger Levsen writes: Holger> I do agree with that. I'm more against a general Holger> recommendation, depending on the circumstances, it's the Holger> right thing to do. My recollection is this came before the TC, but I'm blanking on the bug number. But it seems like the sticking point is the general recommendation. I'd love to figure out how to do this though and document for other people (I have a Ubuntu bug open against krb5 that basically boils down to this issue). >> Holger, would you support adding a comment to 6.4 explaining how >> to do it? Holger> surely. >> I'd write text but I'm honestly baffled how to accomplish this >> for systemd units with dh. Holger> :) Marvin, do you have any clue how to accomplish?
Bug#801065: consent unclear
hi, btw, as pointed out on irc: I ment consensus, not consent. :) On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 10:36:02AM -0500, Marvin Renich wrote: > > I don't think there has been consent on the issue, thus I'm tagging it > > moreinfo. > > > > I'm also wondering whether to mark this bug as wontfix (until there is > > consent) or to reassign to debian-policy or simply to close it. > > I disagree. Re-reading the messages to the bug report, We have > "strongly support" from Sam Hartman, and "also in favor" from Russ > Allbery and Bill Allombert. > > The only objection was from Henrique de Moraes Holschuh based on lack of > risk assessment from the mistaken impression not only based on that, but way more importantly that this would change *years* of existing practice. > What is being proposed in this bug is simply a change to the Developers > Reference to encourage package maintainers to allow dpkg installation to > succeed even if the service fails to start, unless the package > maintainer has a specific reason to do otherwise. "patches welcome", especially for something which some perceive as simple change! -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ Stop saying that we are all in the same boat. We’re all in the same storm. But we’re not all in the same boat. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#801065: Documenting how to not fail postinst on service fails to start
On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 08:39:36AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote: > > "Holger" == Holger Levsen writes: > Holger> I don't think there has been consent on the issue, thus I'm > Holger> tagging it moreinfo. > My reading of the TC and debian-devel discussion was that this was at > least a reasonable thing for maintainers to do, can you give pointers? > and whether it should be done depended on the circumstances. I do agree with that. I'm more against a general recommendation, depending on the circumstances, it's the right thing to do. > Holger, would you support adding a comment to 6.4 explaining how to do > it? surely. > I'd write text but I'm honestly baffled how to accomplish this for > systemd units with dh. :) -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ Bottled water companies don't produce water, they produce plastic bottles. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#801065: consent unclear
* Holger Levsen [230208 08:15]: > control: tags -1 +moreinfo > thanks > > hi, > > I don't think there has been consent on the issue, thus I'm tagging it > moreinfo. > > I'm also wondering whether to mark this bug as wontfix (until there is > consent) or to reassign to debian-policy or simply to close it. I disagree. Re-reading the messages to the bug report, We have "strongly support" from Sam Hartman, and "also in favor" from Russ Allbery and Bill Allombert. The only objection was from Henrique de Moraes Holschuh based on lack of risk assessment from the mistaken impression that what was being proposed was a change to dh that would _automatically_ change existing behavior of all dh-using packages. What is being proposed in this bug is simply a change to the Developers Reference to encourage package maintainers to allow dpkg installation to succeed even if the service fails to start, unless the package maintainer has a specific reason to do otherwise. The bug report appears to me to have reached an overwhelming consensus in favor. ...Marvin
Bug#801065: Documenting how to not fail postinst on service fails to start
> "Holger" == Holger Levsen writes: Holger> I don't think there has been consent on the issue, thus I'm Holger> tagging it moreinfo. My reading of the TC and debian-devel discussion was that this was at least a reasonable thing for maintainers to do, and whether it should be done depended on the circumstances. Holger, would you support adding a comment to 6.4 explaining how to do it? I'd write text but I'm honestly baffled how to accomplish this for systemd units with dh. --Sam
developers-reference_12.13_source.changes ACCEPTED into experimental
Thank you for your contribution to Debian. Accepted: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Format: 1.8 Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2023 14:03:00 +0100 Source: developers-reference Architecture: source Version: 12.13 Distribution: experimental Urgency: medium Maintainer: Developers Reference Maintainers Changed-By: Holger Levsen Changes: developers-reference (12.13) experimental; urgency=medium . * d/tests: - add autopkgtest to validate XML and HTML files, thanks to Aurélien COUDERC who added some to src:desktop-base, which were then taken by Wolfgang Schweer to src:debian-edu. - add small README explaining how to run autopkgtests locally. Checksums-Sha1: 9a78c67f98753e3e0ed9de4c5a1e5932e7e79f01 2501 developers-reference_12.13.dsc 1ed5a4f632c96ff74c33c2cd6e09b63874b57112 560216 developers-reference_12.13.tar.xz c00145ce67317baf10a3e5d93a114dd7c99d04c1 5893 developers-reference_12.13_source.buildinfo Checksums-Sha256: b8a19fa757faa2c69dcab366690b4955f889ce30381b90e3b5ee6b35287f0286 2501 developers-reference_12.13.dsc 5d8b05b595c2061870b204a96fee13f122e5055b492e6477a051f2d81ba265e5 560216 developers-reference_12.13.tar.xz 55f96808cdca94582550dfb61d960dbb7ad2b36262f408cd1e7a62bee8b2645b 5893 developers-reference_12.13_source.buildinfo Files: 8d625358101c0872c94b215a483ab6bd 2501 doc optional developers-reference_12.13.dsc d39bff2264ecd0e150952acdfe4f68c3 560216 doc optional developers-reference_12.13.tar.xz 56788f697ea660cddeaeef35363d682b 5893 doc optional developers-reference_12.13_source.buildinfo -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEuL9UE3sJ01zwJv6dCRq4VgaaqhwFAmPjo7UACgkQCRq4Vgaa qhy+3w/9E59Pj9f/R2Stz3PlE7MNrNWjY6M1JGiGnlVt+nZKx4GwYd0fM65PZDyn cbEIhsVq95jsnbEJSyJuloSApPNdwZkeHXhxyw+ewSjbhBjNbrA5RMmwiPRet1Sv 5/SS6EBYfajCdhVgGg093iFSdNm8SW7TnQ4Q4rQbEP50EqV4gRYeoKlCBECP97Ro QhPPgX03jlR84dUQKX0yBPUia3lSoXegoikE8uRiNCgiUt2hMgppsHuLqnETkonT nYEYQZa9V9NegFEQyncHLFtKbOKbWGHAY37xeoZO5pMoDJgMyu3n3+fL6lkHcQDW Yh4IaFQsMceZHbcfnmHiw8C/YibFRB67PWy+1cEuYCW2XqjNz+01TgfNPKyJE4J9 gwEWqMyKVZTeKsd/tM2c3R4PPvPdVaiByO01oRMfj4zIXKWT3g6kfIzcC9ANoVOc eFUWhjnkTipuia32ucjNUEmYRrhbwgBMoMmy1lFIbpR/BakR3GUqvSaMMx8RK087 YdbIPxhpfMeJ3COKttjVSjGP4479shZo0L5mzdQnXF4lkNDoPqmM7Ne0Opr5X5t4 PkduIvi8ILEZN9GdIXztBu+fxUL9H9YW12MgHYoSsen6Ep+cxPHC1ogy+dgzZqcF 9JreJF1MXhQ2894gnUhdyj3Q4W+2kfZ9OflTQs0zYRlKGECXikw= =hdJh -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Processing of developers-reference_12.13_source.changes
developers-reference_12.13_source.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: developers-reference_12.13.dsc developers-reference_12.13.tar.xz developers-reference_12.13_source.buildinfo Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org)
Processed: debtags future unclear
Processing control commands: > tags -1 +moreinfo Bug #299927 [developers-reference] developers-reference: Please add info about tagging packages with debtags Bug #339557 [developers-reference] devref: Please mention debtags as a best practice Added tag(s) moreinfo. Added tag(s) moreinfo. > affects -1 debtags Bug #299927 [developers-reference] developers-reference: Please add info about tagging packages with debtags Bug #339557 [developers-reference] devref: Please mention debtags as a best practice Added indication that 299927 affects debtags Added indication that 339557 affects debtags -- 299927: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=299927 339557: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=339557 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#299927: debtags future unclear
control: tags -1 +moreinfo control: affects -1 debtags thanks hi, https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20221019132043.d4c4liyt6s6qe...@enricozini.org and https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/bb7064071ebd838a9e045a1916bba49a9b960d80.ca...@debian.org indicate that debtags.debian.org might be shutdown after the release of bookworm, thus tagging this bug moreinfo for now, as there's not much point documenting something which is going away. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ figures don't lie, but liars figure. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#829611: updated url
hi, annex.debconf.org is gone, the slides are at https://salsa.debian.org/debconf-team/public/share/debconf16/-/raw/master/slides/13-we-need-you-to-release-debian.pdf -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ Every time you see the word "smart" used to describe a device, replace it with "surveillance." Surveillance watch. Surveillance streetlights. Surveillance oven. Surveillance toilet. Surveillance car. Surveillance city. (@mollyali) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Processed: consent unclear
Processing control commands: > tags -1 +moreinfo Bug #801065 [developers-reference] Section 6.4 - discourage failing install or upgrade when service fails to start Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 801065: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=801065 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#801065: consent unclear
control: tags -1 +moreinfo thanks hi, I don't think there has been consent on the issue, thus I'm tagging it moreinfo. I'm also wondering whether to mark this bug as wontfix (until there is consent) or to reassign to debian-policy or simply to close it. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ Nach wieviel Einzelfällen wird ein Einzelfall zum Normalfall? (Jan Böhmermann) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
