Re: Is there a good solution for this: release-upgrade with dependency moved to universe
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 11:05:24AM -0500, Nick Rosbrook wrote: > Hi, > > I guess something in do-release-upgrade could be run to, when encountering > > such a situation, automatically select bin:samba-vfs-modules-extra for the > > upgrade as well? Is it worth it? Is there a precedence for something like > > this? And how would this be done in a more generic/general case, if at all? > We have the concept of "quirks"[1] in ubuntu-release-upgrader which > allows us to handle special cases like this. For example, a cycle or > two ago when flatpak was removed from flavor seeds, we added some code > to not auto-remove flatpak if it appeared the user was actively using > it. So yes, if nothing else we could add a quirk to make sure > samba-vfs-modules-extra is installed upgrades if samba-vfs-modules is > currently installed. I want to weigh in here to say that I think we should NOT do this by default. In my view, every difference between "Install Ubuntu release X; upgrade to Ubuntu release X+1" and "Install Ubuntu release X+1" is a bug. These bugs vary in severity, and we'll probably never zero out the list of such bugs. But we should not knowingly *introduce* such bugs through quirking. This should also apply to "Install Ubuntu release X; apt install Y; upgrade to Ubuntu release X+1", when not modifying any configuration files along the way (though the severity of such a bug should also understandably be lower). If it's possible to detect that the system in question is *using* glusterfs, and add a quirk at runtime to install samba-vfs-modules-extra, then I think this sort of change is ok. Otherwise, I think the right answer here is: behavior changes on upgrade between releases, and the release upgrade is the time for the user to discover this is the case and deal with it (as part of a maintenance window). Otherwise, you're really just shifting the pain. Ubuntu X went EOL, I have to reinstall, I install Ubuntu X+1 which is what I had installed before, why are things behaving differently?! -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Is there a good solution for this: release-upgrade with dependency moved to universe
On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 06:09:07PM -0300, Andreas Hasenack wrote: > Hi Nick, > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 1:05 PM Nick Rosbrook > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > I guess something in do-release-upgrade could be run to, when > > encountering such a situation, automatically select > > bin:samba-vfs-modules-extra for the upgrade as well? Is it worth it? Is > > there a precedence for something like this? And how would this be done in a > > more generic/general case, if at all? > > > > We have the concept of "quirks"[1] in ubuntu-release-upgrader which > > allows us to handle special cases like this. For example, a cycle or > > two ago when flatpak was removed from flavor seeds, we added some code > > to not auto-remove flatpak if it appeared the user was actively using > > it. So yes, if nothing else we could add a quirk to make sure > > samba-vfs-modules-extra is installed upgrades if samba-vfs-modules is > > currently installed. > > > > > That sounds exactly what I need, thank a log for the pointer! > > Is there an easy way to use "do-release-upgrade -d" to test my changes > before proposing them, or will it always download the tarball at > http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/noble/main/dist-upgrader-all/current/noble.tar.gz > and use that? "do-release-upgrade -d" will always download the tarball that the appropriate meta-release file indicates. However, you could build the package locally put and extract the tarball on the system to be upgraded and run "sudo ./noble" to test your changes. It is important to note that "do-release-upgrade" does pass some environment variables along to the upgrade process that would be lost with this method. -- Brian Murray -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Is there a good solution for this: release-upgrade with dependency moved to universe
Hi Nick, On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 1:05 PM Nick Rosbrook wrote: > Hi, > > > I guess something in do-release-upgrade could be run to, when > encountering such a situation, automatically select > bin:samba-vfs-modules-extra for the upgrade as well? Is it worth it? Is > there a precedence for something like this? And how would this be done in a > more generic/general case, if at all? > > We have the concept of "quirks"[1] in ubuntu-release-upgrader which > allows us to handle special cases like this. For example, a cycle or > two ago when flatpak was removed from flavor seeds, we added some code > to not auto-remove flatpak if it appeared the user was actively using > it. So yes, if nothing else we could add a quirk to make sure > samba-vfs-modules-extra is installed upgrades if samba-vfs-modules is > currently installed. > > That sounds exactly what I need, thank a log for the pointer! Is there an easy way to use "do-release-upgrade -d" to test my changes before proposing them, or will it always download the tarball at http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/noble/main/dist-upgrader-all/current/noble.tar.gz and use that? > Thanks, > Nick > > [1] > https://git.launchpad.net/ubuntu-release-upgrader/tree/DistUpgrade/DistUpgradeQuirks.py > -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
