On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 12:36 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 23:21:57 +0200 Matthias Klumpp wrote: > > > Please take into account that apt-listbugs expects to receive (from the > > > package manager) the apt VERSION 2 hook interface protocol output, then > > > expects that the user is able to see its output and to send input to it > > > (to answer questions and issue commands). > > > I am suspecting that packagekit fails to meet one of the above > > > requirements: if this is confirmed, then I think that packagekit should > > > be fixed, so that it meets the requirements. > > Reading from stdin is not allowed by PackageKit's policy, so if > > apt-listbugs want to ask questions, it could do that using debconf. > > This is awkward: I don't even know how I could ask questions and output > data through debconf from within a program written in Ruby! > I searched for something (a library?) to use debconf from Ruby, but > found nothing. Is there a way, as far as you know? No idea, but we certainly support debconf output, so it seems to be the best option; especially as that's integrated into the desktop.
> > > I don't know the version 2 protocol, so it might be necessray/possible to > > fix the aptcc backend to support it. > > But Julian knows more about this. Do I? Honestly, I don't know anything about those protocols. > > It's possible that aptcc already provides the correct output, following > the apt VERSION 2 hook interface protocol format (which, by the way, is > not very well documented: see bug #627188, from Message #32 on). > It's possible that the issue you are experiencing is only due to > apt-listbugs trying to ask a question to the user (through stdout) and > never receiving an answer (through stdin). > > > Does apt-listbugs work with Aptdaemon? I guess APTd might have the same > > problems. > > I don't know: it's first time I hear about Aptdaemon. > Normal users that install, upgrade or remove packages? > Scary! > I am not sure about the security implications of these possibilities: > I don't think I would install Aptdaemon on any of the boxes I > administer... Only administrator users are allowed, via PolicyKit. > [...] > > >> This bug is release-critical, as installing apt-listbugs renders > > >> packagekit unusable (you can't install or upgrade anymore). Just like > > >> 606025, this blocks any adoption of PackageKit as default. > > Adoption of PackageKit as default for what? > Do you mean that the goal is having it as a dependency of some package > or meta-package? Which (meta-)package? Replacing the current package management stack used in default Debian installations with GNOME (update-notifier, update-manager, aptdaemon, sessioninstaller). > > > > >> Proposed solution: apt-listbugs should not wait for input when started > > >> under PackageKit. > > > > > > I am not convinced: apt-listbugs would be utterly useless, if the user > > > weren't able to choose what to do, whenever RC-bugs are found to affect > > > a to-be-installed or to-be-upgraded package! > > > Moreover, I don't think apt-listbugs is able to know which package > > > manager has launched it... > > It might be possible to detect whether packagekitd executes apt-listbugs > > or if it is executed directly. > > How can I distinguish whether apt-listbugs has been called by apt-get, > (or aptitude, cupt, or similar), or else by packagekit? How about checking whether the process is attached to a terminal? > > > Then apt-listbugs would still work for users running upgrades via > > command-line. > > But the best way really is to fix apt-listbugs or the APTcc backend, so PK > > and apt-listbugs can work together. > > I would love to make this possible, but the design of PackageKit seems > to make it especially difficult... :-( -- Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org