Your message dated Fri, 24 Mar 2017 01:45:43 +1300
with message-id <d1c1db4a-7866-46bf-b03a-82fd85346...@treenet.co.nz>
and subject line Re: squid: prompting due to modified conffiles which were not 
modified by the user: /etc/squid/squid.conf
has caused the Debian Bug report #801564,
regarding squid: prompting due to modified conffiles which were not modified by 
the user: /etc/squid/squid.conf
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
801564: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=801564
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: squid
Version: 3.5.10-1
Severity: serious
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: piuparts

Hi,

during a test with piuparts I noticed your package failed the piuparts
upgrade test because dpkg detected a conffile as being modified and then
prompted the user for an action. As there is no user input, this fails.
But this is not the real problem, the real problem is that this prompt
shows up in the first place, as there was nobody modifying this conffile
at all, the package has just been installed and upgraded...

This is a violation of policy 10.7.3, see
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#s10.7.3,
which says "[These scripts handling conffiles] must not ask unnecessary
questions (particularly during upgrades), and must otherwise be good
citizens."

https://wiki.debian.org/DpkgConffileHandling should help with figuring
out how to do this properly.

In https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/08/msg00675.html and
followups it has been agreed that these bugs are to be filed with
severity serious.

>From the attached log (scroll to the bottom...):

  Preparing to unpack .../squid-langpack_20150704-1_all.deb ...
  Unpacking squid-langpack (20150704-1) over (20140506-1) ...
  Preparing to unpack .../squid-common_3.5.10-1_all.deb ...
  Unpacking squid-common (3.5.10-1) over (2.7.STABLE9-4.1+deb7u1) ...
  Preparing to unpack .../squid_3.5.10-1_amd64.deb ...
  Unpacking squid (3.5.10-1) over (2.7.STABLE9-4.1+deb7u1) ...
....
  Setting up squid (3.5.10-1) ...
  Installing new version of config file /etc/init.d/squid ...
  Installing new version of config file /etc/logrotate.d/squid ...
  Installing new version of config file /etc/resolvconf/update-libc.d/squid ...
  
  Configuration file '/etc/squid/squid.conf'
   ==> File on system created by you or by a script.
   ==> File also in package provided by package maintainer.
     What would you like to do about it ?  Your options are:
      Y or I  : install the package maintainer's version
      N or O  : keep your currently-installed version
        D     : show the differences between the versions
        Z     : start a shell to examine the situation
   The default action is to keep your current version.
  *** squid.conf (Y/I/N/O/D/Z) [default=N] ? dpkg: error processing package 
squid (--configure):
   end of file on stdin at conffile prompt
  Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.19-22) ...
  Processing triggers for systemd (226-4) ...
  Errors were encountered while processing:
   squid


This was observed on the upgrade path wheezy -> jessie -> stretch.
There was no squid package in jessie, so this is effectively
an upgrade from 2.7 to 3.5.

Which also means there is no automatic upgrade path from squid 2.7 in wheezy
to squid3 in jessie!


cheers,

Andreas

Attachment: squid_3.5.10-1.log.gz
Description: application/gzip


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Control: notfixed -1 3.5.12-1
Control: fixed -1 3.5.23-2
Control: notfound -1 3.5.23-2
thanks

This is a new bug, it has never happened before - therefore no
regression. I have opened bug 858556 for tracking the new issue.

It is not involving dpkg prompting the user about config files,
therefore not the same bug. Re-closing.

Amos

--- End Message ---

Reply via email to