On 2014-03-08, David Kalnischkies <da...@kalnischkies.de> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 01:37:22AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: >> Gabriele Giacone <1o5g4...@gmail.com> (2014-03-04): >> > On hurd, "apt-cdrom ident" started requesting to insert cdrom even if >> > cdrom is >> > already mounted. >> > That breaks debian-installer given it's called by load-install-cd. >> > Recent debian-installer builds get stuck at "Configuring apt - Scanning the >> > CD-ROM". >> > See https://bugs.debian.org/728153 >> >> Weekly installation image builds are indeed broken; this is slightly >> annoying since I was aiming at releasing an alpha 1 image for jessie >> soon, so that we can perform regression tests against it. > > Sorry about that. I am not really able to test cdrom stuff at the moment > and had hoped that this was actually tested with d-i as the buglog > indicated this to me (yes I know, silly me). John, as the author of the > patch, can you shine some light on with what you have tested this (out > of my interest). One of your mails suggested to me it was useful for > d-i, but now that I read it again I seem to have overlooked a > "possibly".
I tested apt-cdrom add with d-i for my original patch, since the problem I was solving was for d-i. You then asked me to change ident as well. I did not test the ident changes with d-i, only from various tests on the command line. I will look at how d-i is using ident and see what the problem is. > At least it reminds me that I have to find a way to make a testcase > which doesn't use --no-mount as this is of course hiding the issue… > > Sidenote: Why are you allowing apt-cdrom to do the mounting by itself > here if you have mounted it already and remount it after the run? While making the code changes, the handling of no-mount seemed odd to me, as if it was being used as some special case for some application and was not really a general-purpose feature. And it was different for "add" than it was for "ident". Now "ident" behaves like "add" which is probably the problem. I thought I was fixing buggy behavior for code that nobody used. >> [ Also, if you're going to change semantics, it probably would be >> nice to warn your users (e.g. -boot@ in that particular case); >> heads-up on topics with possible big consequences are always >> appreciated. ] This is my fault. I should have brought up the strange behavior of "no-mount" and asked why it was like that. In fact, there are several things about the "no-mount" implementation that should probably be addressed because it is quite fragile code. John Ogness -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
