On 2014-12-08 15:27, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > Hello Niels Thykier. > > Thanks for following up on this bug report... > > On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 08:36:36AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote: >> [...] >> >> In both cases, the condition for the ifs seems to be false. > > In the failing build logs the condition is true and it explodes > because of groupmod not yet existing, so your issue seems unrelated > to what I'm looking for information on. >
Fair enough. I was trying to make the case that the script not indempotent in its clean up and it may have caused the issue. But certainly, I see your point. > The buildd chroot upgrade seems to run the migration code and then > somehow throw away all the resulting user/group modifications, so that > on next package upgrade the migration runs again (and again, ...). > This seems like plausible explanation given we tend to use throw-away chroots or lvm-snapshots. So if this problem only appears on buildds (or in other throw-ways environments), I guess you are just missing a Depends after all. We can have the buildds upgraded post Jessie, before you remove the migration code. I cannot recommend it now, as gcc has a new version in unstable that could cause issues for other packages (that could pick up a dependency on the newer gcc). >> But: >> >> >> """ >> $ getent group libuuid >/dev/null && echo "group libuuid present"; \ >> getent group uuidd >/dev/null && echo "group uuidd present" >> group uuidd present >> $ getent group libuuid >/dev/null && ! getent group uuidd >/dev/null >> $ getent passwd libuuid >/dev/null ; echo "User libuuid present" ; \ >> getent passwd uuidd >/dev/null && echo "User uuidd present" >> User libuuid present >> User uuidd present >> $ getent passwd libuuid >/dev/null && ! getent passwd uuidd \ >> >/dev/null && echo "true" >> """ >> >> I "only" have /group/ uuidd, but I have both users present!? > > I'm not sure how that happened, but it is only a minor issue. > The migration code checks that both the old user/group exists > and new user/group not exists, so if both exists it's not a > problem. Ofcourse it's not nice to leave old cruft around... > > [...] > Okay, thanks for clarifying. Given you believe it is only a minor cruft issue, it is not a priority for me for Jessie (unless it is last call for getting it fixed). :) I am certainly ready to look into this for Stretch (or, Jessie, if needed). >> Inside the user migration, there is a remark that usermod will fail if >> the process is running. Does that hold for groupmod as well? > > This remark comes from ubuntu users running into that problem. > If the same where true for groupmod, the (launchpad) bug report > for it would probably have said groupmod instead of usermod > as groupmod is run first. So my guess is no. > > > Regards, > Andreas Henriksson > Ack, thanks. ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
