-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi,
On 18/05/14 16:31, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > Hi, > > On 2014-05-15 16:37, Luis Alejandro Martínez Faneyth wrote: >> There is a serious bug in Wheezy that breaks the upgrade of >> python2.7. Every person that tries to upgrade python2.7 from >> version 2.7.3-6 to 2.7.3-6+deb7u2, will have the following >> error: > > This is not quite correct. I could not reproduce the problem > upgrading a fresh 7.4 system to 7.5, nor have I seen it in the > wild. > Perhaps i should have been more clear on how to reproduce the bug, sorry. On the test case you are presenting, the bug will only happen if you do an aptitude safe-upgrade on a i386 machine. > The file lists for 2.7.3-6 and 2.7.3-6+deb7u2 are identical: > > $ debdiff python2.7_2.7.3-6_amd64.deb > python2.7_2.7.3-6+deb7u2_amd64.deb File lists identical (after any > substitutions) > Not for the i386 build, as bug #702005 says. $ debdiff python2.7_2.7.3-6_i386.deb python2.7_2.7.3-6+deb7u2_i386.deb [The following lists of changes regard files as different if they have different names, permissions or owners.] Files in first .deb but not in second - ------------------------------------- - -rw-r--r-- root/root /usr/lib/python2.7/lib-dynload/_hashlib.so - -rw-r--r-- root/root /usr/lib/python2.7/lib-dynload/_ssl.so > Only the intermediate package 2.7.3-6+deb7u1, which originated in > stable-security, contains two files that do not belong to it: > > $ debdiff python2.7_2.7.3-6_amd64.deb > python2.7_2.7.3-6+deb7u1_amd64.deb Files in second .deb but not in > first ------------------------------------- -rw-r--r-- root/root > /usr/lib/python2.7/lib-dynload/_hashlib.so -rw-r--r-- root/root > /usr/lib/python2.7/lib-dynload/_ssl.so > > (Slightly truncated.) > > According to the changelog [1] the problem was detected and fixed > in March, so users upgrading from 2.7.3-6 straight to > 2.7.3-6+deb7u2 will not see a problem. 2.7.3-6+deb7u1 was never > released in a DSA or through stable, so I don't believe that any > real users will have it installed. > > Therefore although I see the bug, I don't have any reason to > believe it affects our users directly. > > If you want to pursue a fix for it regardless, the correct place to > do so is in the Replaces field through stable-security, where the > bug was introduced. Changes in that suite flow through to stable in > due course. > So, should i re-upload the patch pointing to stable-security? Thanks. > 1: > http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/p/python2.7/python2.7_2.7.3-6+deb7u2_changelog > > > > Thanks, > - -- Luis Alejandro Martínez Faneyth Blog: http://huntingbears.com.ve Github: http://github.com/LuisAlejandro Twitter: http://twitter.com/LuisAlejandro CODE IS POETRY -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTehj+AAoJEPYUWpXnjaouYCsP/1AvEJHSty0Br/sowG+vs2wr smt5Oa0XGjfv8Bbv+Ev2bczkCU3HASAO12gD/X+3qe4arm+iyn9ejX3AkI7dPIbp 1Xf9Ivq6Zu3gt109ortg2X4EtCwyheeHFpkMXc2c6RrQD6KpJKQhESMNp7Fy3143 qFlTHdnkbC++xNm2UBCo7kdnidtEecEKJjrPs9D9l2jSm9Rc1w2f7Vo/ludJJu+T jAY00oMSbGYu/f4nkhrNdSbC4OSjs3Vk/AzIARVeFpZSA41inNipWSGEpIl9p8ZT w3ufyZ5WacOj9di7ILkjqqd8nOGNK5popzf3guo7ITT744wn0AWuLC58jwzCyOkf SxerHwR0zjsOLxWtpPqUjquCC+eUBMTuujy5RbqSDzlzfEEdLAyS7VWyFz3N7dNf Qwr9ZfqJoyJ/r55j/4BLRr9ifroYRd9OcjXYPQ3dLAlFCaFE2x1sx5ePHmfMj5h4 eHeIq/7YzPaTKMdvhaaktSg51/D6Ak2de5wNQH54cmg8Qy8cq8oHd2/uLhLhbrGM 6X2rXdIX0PHTXqKc87nSKl6hblSVrGBfBMaqtr6ykfj47wug3xBF/LBNKd0Z4lNP udfTZNLOgj/8BU2Cp37ICt3qXM/RVfdEOKYvno56OMH8l2eFunqaBHGfKlrzD0tw 77a9K9JWIDee1mTXWqPP =LAn3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
