** Description changed:

  [Impact]
  If a package that is Protected: yes (or Important: yes), or one of it's 
dependencies, is involved in a dependency loop with Breaks, APT requires 
APT::Force-LoopBreak instead of resolving the situation directly.
+ 
+ On focal, we also introduce the actual support for protected packages to
+ enable upgrading to later releases more easily (in case a protected
+ package needs to be removed during the upgrade), and to make the
+ backport more similar to main.
  
  [Test plan]
  Run the integration test suite (the autopkgtest) :)
  
  Our test suite covers the tests for both Breaks and Conflicts.
  
  Breaks:
  
  protected-sysvinit (= 1) without dependencies is installed
  protected-sysvinit (= 2) Pre-Depends protected-systemd-sysv
  protected-systemd-sysv (= 2) Breaks: protected-sysvinit (<< 2)
  
  Test: Install protected-sysvinit (= 2)
  Expected result: Unpacking protected-sysvinit (= 2) deconfigures 
protected-sysvinit (= 1), and then we unpack and configure protected-sysvinit 
(= 2) and end up with a working system.
  
  Conflicts: As for Breaks, but the Conflicts will remove the package
  temporarily, requiring the use of APT::Force-LoopBreak option.
  
+ For focal, we also do have a test to check that the Protected field is
+ being used.
+ 
  [Where problems could occur]
  We now allow dpkg to automatically deconfigure protected packages. This 
should just make them behave like normal packages to APT's eye, but bugs I 
guess could occur somewhere in the APT/dpkg interaction (this only applies to 
releases with Protected support in dpkg, Important is not affected, it's always 
been "normal" for dpkg).
  
  During development, we accidentally simplified the patch so much that
  Conflicts did not require Force-LoopBreak for temporary removal. We
  fixed that, but it points out that there is a place where the loop break
  check happens that is a potential regression place.
+ 
+ On focal, we pass additional flags to dpkg that focal's dpkg does not
+ understand, however, we only do that if dpkg asserts it does that, so in
+ practice, this should all work fine and the code path will only be taken
+ with >=groovy dpkg.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1916725

Title:
  Protected/Important packages are not deconfigured, require Force-
  LoopBreak

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/1916725/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

Reply via email to