Hello Andreas, or anyone else affected, Accepted base-files into focal-proposed. The package will build now and be available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/base- files/11ubuntu5.2 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.
Please help us by testing this new package. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation on how to enable and use -proposed. Your feedback will aid us getting this update out to other Ubuntu users. If this package fixes the bug for you, please add a comment to this bug, mentioning the version of the package you tested, what testing has been performed on the package and change the tag from verification-needed- focal to verification-done-focal. If it does not fix the bug for you, please add a comment stating that, and change the tag to verification- failed-focal. In either case, without details of your testing we will not be able to proceed. Further information regarding the verification process can be found at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification . Thank you in advance for helping! N.B. The updated package will be released to -updates after the bug(s) fixed by this package have been verified and the package has been in -proposed for a minimum of 7 days. ** Changed in: base-files (Ubuntu Focal) Status: In Progress => Fix Committed ** Tags added: verification-needed verification-needed-focal ** Changed in: base-files (Ubuntu Bionic) Status: In Progress => Fix Committed ** Tags added: verification-needed-bionic -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to base-files in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1888575 Title: Split motd-news config into a new package Status in base-files package in Ubuntu: Fix Released Status in ubuntu-meta package in Ubuntu: In Progress Status in base-files source package in Xenial: Fix Committed Status in ubuntu-meta source package in Xenial: In Progress Status in base-files source package in Bionic: Fix Committed Status in ubuntu-meta source package in Bionic: In Progress Status in base-files source package in Focal: Fix Committed Status in ubuntu-meta source package in Focal: In Progress Status in base-files source package in Groovy: Fix Released Status in ubuntu-meta source package in Groovy: In Progress Bug description: [Impact] The motd-news script is largely useless for desktop users, as they rarely login via a text console. It makes more sense for server users. We can use package dependencies to have the motd-news script enabled on servers, but disabled on desktops, and still handle upgrades. This is the plan: - move /etc/default/motd-news from base-files into a new binary package (motd-news-config, produced by src:base-files) - have ubuntu-server depend on motd-news-config - have base-files break current ubuntu-server, so that if base-files if upgraded and ubuntu-server is installed, ubuntu-server will also be upgraded to the new version which has the depends on motd-news-config Care must be taken to preserve a changed /etc/default/motd-news when the upgrade installs the new motd-news-config package. For example, on a server that has set ENABLED=0 in /etc/default/motd-news and upgrades to the new base-files and ubuntu-server, and gets the new motd-config- news package, ENABLED=0 must remain set. [Test Case] a) base-files installed, ubuntu-server installed, unmodified /e/d/motd-news apt install base-files - upgrades ubuntu-server - installs motd-news-config - /e/d/motd-news remains, motd-news remains enabled b) base-files installed, ubuntu-server installed, modified /e/d/motd-news apt install base-files - upgrades ubuntu-server - installs motd-news-config - /e/d/motd-news remains with the original modification c) base-files installed, ubuntu-server not installed, unmodified /e/d/motd-news apt install base-files - upgrades base-files - removes /e/d/motd-news - motd-news is disabled d) base-files installed, ubuntu-server not installed, modified /e/d/motd-news apt install base-files - upgrades base-files - /e/d/motd-news gets renamed to backup - motd-news is disabled e) removing motd-news-config will also remove ubuntu-server (since it's a depends, and not a recommends) f) upgrading just ubuntu-server should pull motd-news-config in, and force-upgrade base-files g) Removing motd-news-server leaves /e/d/motd-news around; purging motd-news-server removes the /e/d/motd-news config file h) base-files installed, ubuntu-server installed, removed /e/d/motd-news - apt install base-files - upgrades base-files, upgrades ubuntu-server, installs motd-news-config - /e/d/motd-news is installed with ENABLED=0 i) base-files installed, ubuntu-server NOT installed, removed e/d/motd-news - apt install base-files - base-files is upgraded - no /e/d/motd-news is installed, motd-news remains disabled j) Perform a release upgrade from the previous ubuntu release to the one being tested while having ubuntu-server NOT installed (or use a desktop install). At the end, motd-news should be disabled. Verify with: $ sudo /etc/update-motd.d/50-motd-news --force $ (no output) [Regression Potential] This update is about config file ownership transfer: /e/d/motd-news belonged to base-files, now it belongs to motd-news-config. We tried to handle two important cases here: a) /e/d/motd-news config was changed while it belonged to base-files. For example, an user could have set ENABLED=0. We need to transfer that change to the motd-news-config package when it is installed, otherwise this SRU would jsut re-enabled motd-news. This is handled in d/motd-news-config.postinst's configure case. b) /e/d/motd-news config file was *removed* while it belonged to base-files. In such a case, a normal upgrade of the package (base-files in this example) would not reinstate the file. Much less this upgrade here, which has an explicit rm_conffile maintscript-helper for it. But the motd-news-config package that could be installed in the transaction would place the default config file back, and the default is ENABLED=1. Thus, a system that had motd-news disabled via removing the config file would now have it re-enabled after the upgrade. This was trickier to handle, and we do it in base-files's postinst and motd-news-config's postinst. The drawback is that in one scenario, where just base-files is upgraded and /e/d/motd-news was manually removed by the user, there will be a /e/d/motd-news.wasremoved leftover empty file (see "other info" below for details). In general, the regression risks here are: - have motd-news enabled again on a system where it was previously disabled. We tried to envision two ways it would have been disabled (set ENABLED=0, and remove the config file). There are probably others - differences in dpkg and/or debhelper behavior in older ubuntu releases leading to unexpected results (should be covered by the test cases from this SRU) - xenial in particular is trickier, because src:base-files there does NOT use debhelper, so many of the things we take for granted have to be done by hand - have some sort of dpkg postinst or dependency error because of unpredicted scenarios. Certain assumptions are being made, like the renames that dpkg-maintscript-helper does, and that the filename /etc/default/motd-news.wasremoved that I'm touching and verifying is really mine and not something that was there already. - the versions I'm breaking/replacing on, and using rm_conffiles on, must be exact. These are the versions today in the archive (2020-08-12): base-files: x: 9.4ubuntu4.12 b: 10.1ubuntu2.9 f: 11ubuntu5.1 g: 11ubuntu12 (was 11ubuntu10) ubuntu-meta: x: 1.361.4 b: 1.417.4 f: 1.450.1 g: 1.452 Which reflect in these relationships in the updated packages: Groovy: ubuntu-server 1.453: Depends: motd-news-config base-files 11ubuntu11: Breaks: ubuntu-server (<< 1.453) rm_conffile /etc/default/motd-news 11ubuntu11~ base-files motd-news-config 11ubuntu11: Breaks/Replaces: base-files (<< 11ubuntu11) Focal: ubuntu-server 1.450.2: Depends: motd-news-config base-files 11ubuntu5.2: Breaks: ubuntu-server (<< 1.450.2) rm_conffile /etc/default/motd-news 11ubuntu5.2~ base-files motd-news-config 11ubuntu5.2: Breaks/Replaces: base-files (<< 11ubuntu5.2) Bionic: ubuntu-server 1.417.5: Depends: motd-news-config base-files 10.1ubuntu2.10: Breaks: ubuntu-server (<< 1.417.5) rm_conffile /etc/default/motd-news 10.1ubuntu2.10~ base-files motd-news-config 10.1ubuntu2.10: Breaks/Replaces: base-files (<< 10.1ubuntu2.10) Xenial: ubuntu-server 1.361.5: Depends: motd-news-config base-files 9.4ubuntu4.13: Breaks: ubuntu-server (<< 1.361.5) rm_conffile /etc/default/motd-news 9.4ubuntu4.13~ base-files motd-news-config 9.4ubuntu4.13: Breaks/Replaces: base-files (<< 9.4ubuntu4.13) [Other Info] a) Testcase (i) will leave around an empty /etc/default/motd-news.wasremoved file, created by the base-files postinst. This file is removed by the motd-news-config postinst, but since that package doesn't get installed in that particular scenario, the file remains. I toyed with the idea of adding an extra check to base-file's postinst, like this: --- a/debian/postinst.in +++ b/debian/postinst.in @@ -133,7 +133,11 @@ motd_news_config="/etc/default/motd-news" if [ ! -e ${motd_news_config} ]; then if [ ! -e ${motd_news_config}.dpkg-remove ]; then if [ ! -e ${motd_news_config}.dpkg-backup ]; then - touch ${motd_news_config}.wasremoved + # The .wasremoved file only matters if ubuntu-server is installed, + # because that's what will pull in motd-news-config + if dpkg -l ubuntu-server 2>/dev/null | grep -q ^i; then + touch ${motd_news_config}.wasremoved + fi fi fi fi But deemed it too risky, and not worth further potential regressions. It seemed to work, though, at least for groovy. b) Currently the xenial cloud images, with the exception of the AWS one, do not have ubuntu-server installed. This means that this SRU will disable motd-news on them, unless ubuntu-server was manually installed for some reason. This includes LXD xenial images as well. c) The new motd-news-config package has its d/control priority set to "optional", so a release upgrade won't pick it up (presumably the same applies to the installer). I've been told there are archive overrides that might need updating as well: dear SRU team member, please check, or ask an archive admin to check. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/base-files/+bug/1888575/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
