On 2024-07-29 23:36:02 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 29 Jul 2024 at 11:24:25 (+0200), Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2024-07-28 22:26:10 -0500, David Wright wrote: > > > On Sun 28 Jul 2024 at 16:43:01 (+0200), Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > > On 2024-07-28 00:07:56 -0500, David Wright wrote: > > > > > It looks accidental to me that systemd did that tidying up before > > > > > procps had attempted to remove the file that it (procps) owned. > > > > > > > > No, the breakage was done on purpose: my bug report specifically > > > > about this breakage by systemd was closed in a rather abrupt way: > > > > > > > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1077184 > > > > > > I only wrote that the /order/ was accidental: > > > > If this were accidental, the bug should have been left open. > > I agree with the syslogd maintainer: if you want to use what you had > in /etc/sysctl.conf, place it in one or more of the appropriate > directories, like /etc/sysctl.d/. Closing that bug seems fine.
But this means that by upgrading systemd, the user will suddenly be affected by the /etc/sysctl.conf issue, without any warning from apt-listbugs (note that systemd does not have a Breaks on the buggy procps). This is not satisfactory. > I think the bug is in procps, and I see that your bug is open: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1077187 This one is for the documentation only. The bug about the conffile left behind is https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1076352 > That's a risk of running unstable: package upgrades might occur in the > wrong order, and one needs to report bugs like #1076352. No, even for unstable, maintainers should ensure that packages are upgraded in the right order. > > > > No, this is not sufficient. During an upgrade, a package is allowed > > > > to do a merge of the new defaults (this occurs quite frequently). > > > > > > That doesn't square with Policy, and this typical dialogue that > > > we've all seen: > > > > > > Configuration file `foo' > > > ==> Modified (by you or by a script) since installation. > > > ==> Package distributor has shipped an updated version. > > > 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. > > > *** foo (Y/I/N/O/D/Z) [default=N] ? > > > > > > Might your merges apply to configuration files rather than conffiles? > > > > There are several ways to update the configuration in an upgrade. > > Not every package uses this method. > > This is the only way for conffiles that have been modified. So, the issue is probably for configuration files that are not conffiles. There's also the issue with configuration by symbolic links. How do you tell the system that in future upgrades, you want to keep some symbolic link (e.g. /etc/sysctl.d/99-sysctl.conf before upgrading systemd[*])? [*] Either in unstable, or for the future upgrade from bookworm to trixie. [...] > (Unless by apparent you mean "I didn't see the bug coming." > Well, no, that's what bugs do, pop up without notice.) Wrong. apt-listbugs will list major bugs already reported... but not this one!!! -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
