1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.MAINT.GLIBC

  • Bug#1074368: marked as pending in glibc

    From Aurelien Jarno@21:1/5 to Helmut Grohne on Sun Jul 28 17:20:01 2024
    XPost: linux.debian.bugs.dist

    Hi Helmut,

    On 2024-07-27 10:46, Helmut Grohne wrote:
    Hi Aurelien,

    On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 09:36:36PM +0000, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------ debian/control.in/libc: add breaks against base-files version not providing /usr-merge aliasing symlinks. Closes: #1074368.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I see you resolved the guestfs issue by adding Breaks. I don't quite
    like this outcome and would like to discuss alternative solutions. When
    I created these patches, I carefully ensured that the order of upgrades (base-files vs libc6) would work in both orderings. In adding Breaks you restrict the ordering and I am already seeing how this makes upgrades
    from bookworm to trixie more difficult (due to the imposed ordering).

    My change makes libc6 require something else to provide the aliasing
    symbolic links and the added Breaks is one way to ensure their presence.
    I argue that the links are already ensured by having essential init-system-helpers depend on usr-is-merged.

    I am fine reverting that change on the glibc side if you believe it's
    better. But the submitter encountered a real issue...

    The failure in libguestfs-tools is a bug there in my opinion. It uses
    the host system to construct a VM environment and fails to account for
    the aliasing links created by usrmerge or debootstrap not recorded in a packaging database. This is unfortunate, but not a bug in libc6 as it correctly explains its requirements (via an implicit dependency on
    essential packages).

    Do you mean we could reassign the bug to libguestfs-tools? And get solve
    it there instead?

    I argue that the risk of running a partially upgraded system and running libguestfs tests is fairly low at this time as both packages have
    migrated and trixie-based images typically have been updated (even in a monthly cadence) to include all relevant changes. Hence, I argue that at
    this time the cost of including this Breaks outweighs its benefits.

    Do you agree with this reasoning?

    I am also fine to just ignore the bug, but I don't want it to come back
    at a later stage. Should we maybe get an agreement with the release team
    that it is not considered as a bug?

    Regards
    Aurelien

    --
    Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B aurelien@aurel32.net http://aurel32.net

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)