Hi Francesco, * Francesco Poli <invernom...@paranoici.org> [140509 19:20]: > On Fri, 9 May 2014 11:39:05 +0200 Christian Hofstaedtler wrote: > > please add a failure catcher to apt-listbugs, so that in common > > configurations apt doesn't break during an upgrade of ruby and > > related packages. > > Could you elaborate a bit, please?
Yeah, sorry for writing this in a not really clear way. > Do you think that apt-listbugs should realize that it's failing > to load the debian_version (binary) module and just exit with > zero status without doing anything? I /think/ in cases where it's hopeless for apt-listbugs to start working again, it should just exit with zero. A LoadError exception (and maybe others?) might be a good indicator for such a condition. > The fact is that, if the user wants apt-listbugs to run before > each installation or upgrade by APT in order to check whether > the installation/upgrade is safe, apt-listbugs should stop > APT whenever it is *not* able to perform its normal checks > (running and querying the BTS, and so forth...). > > I think this is a feature, not a bug. > At least as far as I am personally concerned, if I am about to > upgrade, say, some 60 or 70 packages and apt-listbugs cannot run, > I want to stop the upgrade immediately, examine the situation, > fix the minimum needed to let apt-listbugs run correctly, > and *only after that* proceed with the upgrade! > > I am of course open to any suggestion to improve apt-listbugs, > as long as it takes this need into account. I do agree with you on basically everything you said above; altough I'm concerned about users that somehow use apt-listbugs because it's there, not because it was their concious choice. Now I don't know how they end up with that -- I haven't installed Debian using d-i in a long time, so I might have missed any defaults set by d-i -- but apparently there are users that can't fix temporary issues such as this one on their own. > > As you know, the ruby wheezy->jessie upgrade path is already a > > little bit fragile, so it'd be nice if apt-listbugs could catch > > a missing ruby-debian extension. > > I think that the ruby upgrade path should be made less fragile. > I don't think that compensating for a fragile language interpreter > upgrade path should be the responsibility of each single application... > > > See #747406 for an example where apt-listbugs and ruby are already > > upgraded, but ruby-debian is still the old version (due to missing > > Breaks on ruby), and the user is left with a broken apt. > > As I have previously said in the past, I think that some Breaks > would be highly useful to make the upgrade path more robust... > Please consider addressing the issue from this side. Yes, I agree; ruby (from src:ruby-defaults) needs to Break ruby-debian, but I didn't think of that -- will fix that (hopefully tomorrow). > I hope this line of reasoning makes sense to you. > Thanks for the great work on Ruby packaging! Yep. Thanks for your insight. Most of the Ruby packaging is really Antonio's work though :-) Christian -- ,''`. Christian Hofstaedtler <z...@debian.org> : :' : Debian Developer `. `' 7D1A CFFA D9E0 806C 9C4C D392 5C13 D6DB 9305 2E03 `-
pgp96htsmp1o4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
