Debian Bug report logs - #375300
tar: wildcard option breaks apt-listchanges, dpkg-buildpackage, linda and lintian

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Petr Vandrovec <vandrove@vc.cvut.cz>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: tar 1.15.91 breaks at least apt-listchanges

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 03:02:52 +0200

Package: tar
Version: 1.15.91-1
Severity: critical
Justification: makes apt-listchanges unusable

When apt-listchanges tries to extract changelogs, it hits new "feature" of tar 
1.15.91 which forbids wildcards in filenames, and so it fails to do anything as 
it finds no changelog:

12528 execve("/bin/sh", ["sh", "-c", "dpkg-deb --fsys-tarfile 
/var/cache/apt/archives/ttf-dejavu_2.7-2_all.deb |tar xf - -C 
/tmp/apt-listchangesEKaRJr \'usr/doc/*/NEWS.Debian.gz\' 
\'usr/share/doc/*/NEWS.Debian.gz\' \'usr/doc/*/NEWS.Debian\' 
\'usr/share/doc/*/NEWS.Debian\' \'./usr/doc/*/NEWS.Debian.gz\' 
\'./usr/share/doc/*/NEWS.Debian.gz\' \'./usr/doc/*/NEWS.Debian\' 
\'./usr/share/doc/*/NEWS.Debian\' \'usr/doc/*/changelog.Debian.gz\' 
\'usr/share/doc/*/changelog.Debian.gz\' \'usr/doc/*/changelog.Debian\' 
\'usr/share/doc/*/changelog.Debian\' \'./usr/doc/*/changelog.Debian.gz\' 
\'./usr/share/doc/*/changelog.Debian.gz\' \'./usr/doc/*/changelog.Debian\' 
\'./usr/share/doc/*/changelog.Debian\' \'usr/doc/*/changelog.gz\' 
\'usr/share/doc/*/changelog.gz\' \'usr/doc/*/changelog\' 
\'usr/share/doc/*/changelog\' \'./usr/doc/*/changelog.gz\' 
\'./usr/share/doc/*/changelog.gz\' \'./usr/doc/*/changelog\' 
\'./usr/share/doc/*/changelog\' 2>/dev/null"], ["SHELL=/bin/bash", "TERM=linux", 
"HUSHLOGIN=FALSE", "USER=root", "MAIL=/var/mail/root", 
"PATH=/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:.", 
"PWD=/tmp", "LANG=C", "PS1=\\h:\\w\\$ ", "SHLVL=1", "HOME=/root", 
"LOGNAME=root", "LC_CTYPE=cs_CZ", "_=/usr/bin/strace", "OLDPWD=/tmp/w"]) = 0

12530 write(2, "tar: ", 5)              = 5
12530 write(2, "usr/doc/*/NEWS.Debian.gz: Not found in archive", 46) = 46
12530 write(2, "\n", 1)                 = 1
12530 write(2, "tar: ", 5)              = 5
12530 write(2, "usr/share/doc/*/NEWS.Debian.gz: Not found in archive", 52) = 52
12530 write(2, "\n", 1)                 = 1
12530 write(2, "tar: ", 5)              = 5
12530 write(2, "usr/doc/*/NEWS.Debian: Not found in archive", 43) = 43
12530 write(2, "\n", 1)                 = 1
12530 write(2, "tar: ", 5)              = 5
12530 write(2, "usr/share/doc/*/NEWS.Debian: Not found in archive", 49) = 49
12530 write(2, "\n", 1)                 = 1
...

Please, if you must introduce some new options, make '--wildcards' default so 
you do not change behavior in backward incompatible way.  Or, if you are 
absolutely sure that no other program on the world besides apt-listchanges 
depends on this behavior, feel free to reassign this to apt-listchanges.  But 
I'm absolutely sure that apt-listchanges is not only program which depends on 
this behavior (as I've written couple of tools which depend on this as well)...
						Thanks,
							Petr Vandrovec

Message #10 received at 375300@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@v7w.com>

To: 375300@bugs.debian.org

Subject: tar 1.15.91 breaks lintian and linda

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 14:22:55 +1000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello,

tar 1.15.91 breaks lintian and linda:

lintian -i /home/pbuilder/result/mtools/mtools_3.9.10.ds1-2_i386.changes
tar: Pattern matching characters used in file names. Please,
tar: use --wildcards to enable pattern matching, or --no-wildcards to
tar: suppress this warning.
tar: *control: Not found in archive
tar: Error exit delayed from previous errors
internal error: broken input pipe for unpacking
/home/pbuilder/result/mtools/floppyd_3.9.10.ds1-2_i386.deb:

linda -i /home/pbuilder/result/mtools/mtools_3.9.10.ds1-2_i386.changes
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/bin/linda", line 101, in ?
    main.run()
  File "/usr/bin/linda", line 59, in run
    checker.check(file)
  File "/usr/lib/site-python/linda/checker.py", line 28, in check
    self.go()
  File "/usr/lib/site-python/linda/checker.py", line 37, in go
    self.unpack(2)
  File "/usr/lib/site-python/linda/checker.py", line 51, in unpack
    self.unpacker.unpack(self.file, level)
  File "/usr/lib/site-python/linda/unpack.py", line 21, in unpack
    getattr(self, 'unpack_%s_%d' % (file[-3:], level))(file)
  File "/usr/lib/site-python/linda/unpack.py", line 67, in unpack_deb_2
    '%s/unpacked' % self.lab, output)
  File "/usr/lib/site-python/linda/collector.py", line 14, in __init__
    getattr(self, '%s_parse' % type)()
  File "/usr/lib/site-python/linda/collector.py", line 22, in bin_parse
    bits = re.match(self.bpr, line).groupdict()
AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'groupdict'

Best Regards,

Aníbal Monsalve Salazar
-- 
http://v7w.com/anibal

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #15 received at 375300@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Neil Williams <linux@codehelp.co.uk>

To: 375300@bugs.debian.org

Subject: tar: wildcard option breaks apt-listchanges, dpkg-buildpackage, linda and lintian

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 10:27:11 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

$ lintian libqof1_0.7.0-1_powerpc.deb
tar: Pattern matching characters used in file names. Please,
tar: use --wildcards to enable pattern matching, or --no-wildcards to
tar: suppress this warning.
tar: *control: Not found in archive
tar: Error exit delayed from previous errors
internal error: broken input pipe for unpacking
/opt/debian/qof/libqof1_0.7.0-1_powerpc.deb:

f$ linda libqof1_0.7.0-1_powerpc.deb
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/bin/linda", line 101, in ?
    main.run()
  File "/usr/bin/linda", line 59, in run
    checker.check(file)
  File "/usr/lib/site-python/linda/checker.py", line 28, in check
    self.go()
  File "/usr/lib/site-python/linda/checker.py", line 37, in go
    self.unpack(2)
  File "/usr/lib/site-python/linda/checker.py", line 51, in unpack
    self.unpacker.unpack(self.file, level)
  File "/usr/lib/site-python/linda/unpack.py", line 21, in unpack
    getattr(self, 'unpack_%s_%d' % (file[-3:], level))(file)
  File "/usr/lib/site-python/linda/unpack.py", line 67, in unpack_deb_2
    '%s/unpacked' % self.lab, output)
  File "/usr/lib/site-python/linda/collector.py", line 14, in __init__
    getattr(self, '%s_parse' % type)()
  File "/usr/lib/site-python/linda/collector.py", line 22, in bin_parse
    bits = re.match(self.bpr, line).groupdict()
AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'groupdict'

dpkg-deb: building package `libqof-dev' in
`../libqof-dev_0.7.0-1_powerpc.deb'.
tar: -: file name read contains nul character

dpkg-deb: building package `libqof1' in `../libqof1_0.7.0-1_powerpc.deb'.
tar: -: file name read contains nul character


-- 

Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #26 received at 375300@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>

To: Petr Vandrovec <vandrove@vc.cvut.cz>, 375300@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Michael Biebl <biebl@teco.edu>, Chris Hanson <cph@debian.org>, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@v7w.com>, Neil Williams <linux@codehelp.co.uk>

Subject: new tar behavior and --wildcards

Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:22:12 -0600

The new tar behavior with respect to wildcards is not a change I
introduced just for Debian, it's a new upstream change that appears to
be quite intentional and well documented, as per this text from the tar
info docs:

   The following table summarizes pattern-matching default values:

   Members                Default settings
   ------------------------------------------------------------------
   Inclusion              `--no-wildcards --anchored
                           --no-wildcards-match-slash'
   Exclusion              `--wildcards --no-anchored
                           --wildcards-match-slash'

   ---------- Footnotes ----------

   (1) Notice that earlier GNU `tar' versions used globbing for
       inclusion members, which contradicted to UNIX98 specification 
       and was not documented.

Obviously, the problems reported with various Debian utilities are due
to the default now being --no-wildcards for inclusion combined with a
dependency on the footnoted "feature" of previous versions of GNU tar.

Since this seems to have been an intentional behavior change by
upstream to better align with a published standard, I'm uninclined to
fight it, and think our best response is to update our utilities to
include the --wildcards option, with a suitable versioned dependency on
tar.

Bdale

Message #31 received at 375300@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Petr Vandrovec <vandrove@vc.cvut.cz>

To: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>

Cc: 375300@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Michael Biebl <biebl@teco.edu>, Chris Hanson <cph@debian.org>, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@v7w.com>, Neil Williams <linux@codehelp.co.uk>

Subject: Re: new tar behavior and --wildcards

Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:53:43 +0200

[I'm not on Debian-devel, so please CC me]

Bdale Garbee wrote:
> The new tar behavior with respect to wildcards is not a change I
> introduced just for Debian, it's a new upstream change that appears to
> be quite intentional and well documented, as per this text from the tar
> info docs:
> 
>    The following table summarizes pattern-matching default values:
> 
>    Members                Default settings
>    ------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Inclusion              `--no-wildcards --anchored
>                            --no-wildcards-match-slash'
>    Exclusion              `--wildcards --no-anchored
>                            --wildcards-match-slash'
> 
>    ---------- Footnotes ----------
> 
>    (1) Notice that earlier GNU `tar' versions used globbing for
>        inclusion members, which contradicted to UNIX98 specification 
>        and was not documented.

Although maybe that it was not documented, it was widely used, and it exists for 
at least 6 years.  So upstream should fix documentation instead of tar behavior. 
 As documentation is not part of Debian, it does not matter for Debian anyway.

> Obviously, the problems reported with various Debian utilities are due
> to the default now being --no-wildcards for inclusion combined with a
> dependency on the footnoted "feature" of previous versions of GNU tar.
> 
> Since this seems to have been an intentional behavior change by
> upstream to better align with a published standard, I'm uninclined to
> fight it, and think our best response is to update our utilities to
> include the --wildcards option, with a suitable versioned dependency on
> tar.

This decision makes tar completely incompatible.  Programs which worked fine 
with tar for 6 years are suddenly broken, and now you have to have two versions 
- one for 'tar' before this brokeness, which do not pass --wildcards, and one 
for this broken 'tar', which passes --wildcards.  And older version on newer 
'tar' extracts nothing, while new version on older 'tar' fails with an unknown 
option error.

Maybe it could be default for tar's POSIX mode, but I have no idea why GNU mode 
behavior should be changed in any way.
							Petr Vandrovec

Message #36 received at 375300@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin Quinson <martin.quinson@loria.fr>

To: 375300@bugs.debian.org

Subject: This breaks my package too

Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:05:58 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

My package po4a is FTBFS because of this bug:

dh_md5sums
dh_builddeb
dpkg-deb: building package po4a' in ../po4a_0.26-1_all.deb'.
tar: -: file name read contains nul character
 dpkg-genchanges
 

Dude, would you mind fixing it by making --widecards the default setting,
please ? I guess that at least half of the archive is broken because of this
cosmetic change.

Thanks in advance,
Mt.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #41 received at 375300@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>

To: Petr Vandrovec <vandrove@vc.cvut.cz>, 375300@bugs.debian.org

Cc: control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#375300: tar 1.15.91 breaks at least apt-listchanges

Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 21:10:43 -0600

reassign 375300 apt-listchanges
thanks

On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 03:02 +0200, Petr Vandrovec wrote:

> When apt-listchanges tries to extract changelogs, it hits new "feature" of tar 
> 1.15.91 which forbids wildcards in filenames, and so it fails to do anything as 
> it finds no changelog:

> Please, if you must introduce some new options, make '--wildcards' default so 
> you do not change behavior in backward incompatible way.  

This is not a change I introduced just for Debian, it's a new upstream
tar behavior that appears to be quite intentional and well documented,
as per this text from the tar info docs:

   The following table summarizes pattern-matching default values:

   Members                Default settings
   ------------------------------------------------------------------
   Inclusion              `--no-wildcards --anchored
                          --no-wildcards-match-slash'
   Exclusion              `--wildcards --no-anchored
                          --wildcards-match-slash'

   ---------- Footnotes ----------

   (1) Notice that earlier GNU `tar' versions used globbing for
       inclusion members, which contradicted to UNIX98 specification 
       and was not documented.

Obviously, the problem you're reporting is due to the default being
--no-wildcards for inclusion.

Since this seems to have been an intentional behavior change by
upstream, I'm uninclined to fight about it, and think our best response
is to update apt-listchanges and any other utilities that happen to
depend on the previous behavior of tar, with a suitable versioned
dependency on tar if appropriate.

Bdale

Message #50 received at 375300@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Cc: Petr Vandrovec <vandrove@vc.cvut.cz>, Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>, 375300@bugs.debian.org, Michael Biebl <biebl@teco.edu>, Chris Hanson <cph@debian.org>, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@v7w.com>, Neil Williams <linux@codehelp.co.uk>

Subject: Re: new tar behavior and --wildcards

Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:02:50 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Le lun 26 juin 2006 21:53, Petr Vandrovec a écrit :
> Maybe it could be default for tar's POSIX mode, but I have no idea
> why GNU mode behavior should be changed in any way.

I second that. it's now completely unpossible to do basic packaging 
work, because such a change wasn't planned. I also don't find it wise, 
if we still want to release this year, to introduce such a change 
*now*.

Bdale, I *really* beg you to postpone that default change post-etch.
-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #55 received at 375300@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thijs Kinkhorst <kink@squirrelmail.org>

To: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org>

Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Petr Vandrovec <vandrove@vc.cvut.cz>, Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>, 375300@bugs.debian.org, Michael Biebl <biebl@teco.edu>, Chris Hanson <cph@debian.org>, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@v7w.com>, Neil Williams <linux@codehelp.co.uk>

Subject: Re: new tar behavior and --wildcards

Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 13:37:21 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 10:02 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Le lun 26 juin 2006 21:53, Petr Vandrovec a écrit :
> > Maybe it could be default for tar's POSIX mode, but I have no idea
> > why GNU mode behavior should be changed in any way.
> 
> I second that. it's now completely unpossible to do basic packaging 
> work, because such a change wasn't planned. I also don't find it wise, 
> if we still want to release this year, to introduce such a change 
> *now*.
> 
> Bdale, I *really* beg you to postpone that default change post-etch.

Is there any idea of the number of packages actually affected by this?
I've harly seen an RC bug flood arise out of this; I've only seen two,
one of which is already pending upload. Probably a few more will arise,
but the fix is trivial.

So I wonder if it would be useful to revert the change, since we have to
change at some point and at this point the effects do not seem to be
quite dramatic. Maybe you have signs indicating otherwise?


Thijs

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #60 received at 375300@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org>

To: Thijs Kinkhorst <kink@squirrelmail.org>

Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Petr Vandrovec <vandrove@vc.cvut.cz>, Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>, 375300@bugs.debian.org, Michael Biebl <biebl@teco.edu>, Chris Hanson <cph@debian.org>, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@v7w.com>, Neil Williams <linux@codehelp.co.uk>

Subject: Re: new tar behavior and --wildcards

Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 13:44:50 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Le mar 27 juin 2006 13:37, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit :
> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 10:02 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Le lun 26 juin 2006 21:53, Petr Vandrovec a écrit :
> > > Maybe it could be default for tar's POSIX mode, but I have no
> > > idea why GNU mode behavior should be changed in any way.
> >
> > I second that. it's now completely unpossible to do basic packaging
> > work, because such a change wasn't planned. I also don't find it
> > wise, if we still want to release this year, to introduce such a
> > change *now*.
> >
> > Bdale, I *really* beg you to postpone that default change
> > post-etch.
>
> Is there any idea of the number of packages actually affected by
> this? I've harly seen an RC bug flood arise out of this; I've only
> seen two, one of which is already pending upload. Probably a few more
> will arise, but the fix is trivial.
>
> So I wonder if it would be useful to revert the change, since we have
> to change at some point and at this point the effects do not seem to
> be quite dramatic. Maybe you have signs indicating otherwise?


I fear there will be a lot. for me lintian failed, and I had some 
curious behaviour with one package I sponsored recently. To avoid 
problems atm, I force my pbuilder to use the tar from testing.

As tar is a core component of the distro, I'm quite afraid of that 
change, that may have quite well hidden side effects, and be quite 
desastrous :/
-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #65 received at 375300@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Neil Williams <linux@codehelp.co.uk>

To: Thijs Kinkhorst <kink@squirrelmail.org>

Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Petr Vandrovec <vandrove@vc.cvut.cz>, Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>, 375300@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: new tar behavior and --wildcards

Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 13:00:59 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 10:02 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> Le lun 26 juin 2006 21:53, Petr Vandrovec a écrit :
>>> Maybe it could be default for tar's POSIX mode, but I have no idea
>>> why GNU mode behavior should be changed in any way.
>> I second that. it's now completely unpossible to do basic packaging 
>> work, because such a change wasn't planned. I also don't find it wise, 
>> if we still want to release this year, to introduce such a change 
>> *now*.
>>
>> Bdale, I *really* beg you to postpone that default change post-etch.
> 
> Is there any idea of the number of packages actually affected by this?

It's not so much packages already in the archive, it's every package
that is being prepared to be uploaded.

Lintian *always* fails for all packages that I build on a system with
the updated tar. None of those packages failed prior to the tar update.

Linda just crashes, every single time. Again, never did before.

Without those two, how can new packages be uploaded safely?

dpkg-buildpackage generates an error message but does continue to operate.

> I've harly seen an RC bug flood arise out of this; I've only seen two,

I'm not a DD (in the NM process) but couldn't that simply be because the
Debian machines themselves (like p.d.o and qa.d.o) have not upgraded to
this release of tar? If those machines become unable to run lintian or
linda without errors, isn't that going to be a flood of a different kind?

> one of which is already pending upload. Probably a few more will arise,
> but the fix is trivial.

You mean downgrading to the version of tar in testing?

> So I wonder if it would be useful to revert the change, since we have to
> change at some point and at this point the effects do not seem to be
> quite dramatic. Maybe you have signs indicating otherwise?
> 

PLEASE can tar be reverted to 1.15.1dfsg-3 in unstable?

Maybe tar 1.15.91-1 should go into experimental until lintian,
dpkg-buildpackage and linda can all be prepared for the new behaviour.

If lintian functionality isn't restored soon, how can new packages be
uploaded safely?

-- 

Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #70 received at 375300@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thijs Kinkhorst <kink@squirrelmail.org>

To: Neil Williams <linux@codehelp.co.uk>

Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Petr Vandrovec <vandrove@vc.cvut.cz>, Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>, 375300@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: new tar behavior and --wildcards

Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 14:24:37 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 13:00 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> It's not so much packages already in the archive, it's every package
> that is being prepared to be uploaded.
> 
> Lintian *always* fails for all packages that I build on a system with
> the updated tar. None of those packages failed prior to the tar update.

Your argument revolves around the fact that lintian is now broken. As a
matter of fact, lintian has already been fixed in CVS for that, so after
the next upload of lintian, the argument that this affects *all*
packages is not valid anymore.

I'm confident that the lintian maintainers won't wait long with their
new version.


Thijs

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #75 received at 375300@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>

To: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>

Cc: Petr Vandrovec <vandrove@vc.cvut.cz>, 375300@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Michael Biebl <biebl@teco.edu>, Chris Hanson <cph@debian.org>, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@v7w.com>, Neil Williams <linux@codehelp.co.uk>

Subject: Re: new tar behavior and --wildcards

Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 21:52:52 +0200

On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 01:22:12PM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> 
> Since this seems to have been an intentional behavior change by
> upstream to better align with a published standard, I'm uninclined to
> fight it, and think our best response is to update our utilities to
> include the --wildcards option, with a suitable versioned dependency on
> tar.

Debian still has to provide an upgrade path for users upgrading from Sarge.
We cannot blindly break users scripts.

Also, before doing such change we need to audit:

1) all build scripts (i.e. rebuild the whole archive with the new tar)
   and see how many packages FTBFS.
2) all Sarge maintainer scripts, init script and cron scripts
3) all Etch  maintainer scripts, init script and cron scripts
4) all Sarge packages for tar usage to allow for partial upgrade.
5) all Etch packages for tar usage 

We did something similar with "su" but we did it earlier in the release
cycle, and I think we have already lot of work to do to release etch on
time.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Message #80 received at 375300@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christian Perrier <bubulle@debian.org>

To: Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr>, Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>, Petr Vandrovec <vandrove@vc.cvut.cz>, 375300@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Michael Biebl <biebl@teco.edu>, Chris Hanson <cph@debian.org>, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@v7w.com>, Neil Williams <linux@codehelp.co.uk>

Subject: Re: new tar behavior and --wildcards

Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 07:02:15 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

> Debian still has to provide an upgrade path for users upgrading from Sarge.
> We cannot blindly break users scripts.

Here, the only way seems to be putting an entry in NEWS.Debian (for
users script, ie things not under our control).

> We did something similar with "su" but we did it earlier in the release
> cycle, and I think we have already lot of work to do to release etch on
> time.


At first reading of that thread, I tend to agree with Bill here. It
seems pretty late in the release cycle to make that change.

What about reimplementing the "old" behaviour in tar, make it the
default for etch, with allowing the "new" behaviour to be voluntarily
enforced (through an env variable or so)....and revert this *after*
the release of Etch.

Involving the release team (if not already done, which I doubt for
something managed by Bdale) could be good if that's likely to delay
the release.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #85 received at 375300@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>

To: Christian Perrier <bubulle@debian.org>

Cc: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>, Petr Vandrovec <vandrove@vc.cvut.cz>, 375300@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Michael Biebl <biebl@teco.edu>, Chris Hanson <cph@debian.org>, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@v7w.com>, Neil Williams <linux@codehelp.co.uk>

Subject: Re: new tar behavior and --wildcards

Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 10:36:20 +0200

On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 07:02:15AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > Debian still has to provide an upgrade path for users upgrading from Sarge.
> > We cannot blindly break users scripts.
> 
> Here, the only way seems to be putting an entry in NEWS.Debian (for
> users script, ie things not under our control).

In addition, I would suggest we reinstate the previous behaviour, but
display a warning when wildcards are used but --wildcards is not set.
The warning would tell people about the migration and explains they must
fix their scripts to use --wildcards before upgrading to etch+1.

This way it is easy to find problematic scripts.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Message #90 received at 375300@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>

To: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>

Cc: Christian Perrier <bubulle@debian.org>, Petr Vandrovec <vandrove@vc.cvut.cz>, 375300@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Michael Biebl <biebl@teco.edu>, Chris Hanson <cph@debian.org>, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@v7w.com>, Neil Williams <linux@codehelp.co.uk>

Subject: Re: new tar behavior and --wildcards

Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 22:32:30 -0400

On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 10:36 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:

> > Here, the only way seems to be putting an entry in NEWS.Debian (for
> > users script, ie things not under our control).

Good idea, Christian.

> In addition, I would suggest we reinstate the previous behaviour, but
> display a warning when wildcards are used but --wildcards is not set.

The problem with this is that generating a new warning can also cause
people to need to update scripts, since lots of people seem to parse the
output of commands like tar in wrapper scripts.  So, I'm not convinced
that this is really a good idea.  I'm also always hesitant to deviate
Debian default behavior for utilities like tar from upstream.

All in all, I'm not yet convinced that reverting to the old wildcard
behavior is the right thing to do.  I've only heard about problems in a
few (four?) packages so far, and all of them are Debian-specific
programs that should be easy for us to update.  I see no need for panic,
though it's obviously and clearly regrettable that the packages in
questions are ones that affect processes like building and testing
Debian packages.

Bdale

Message #101 received at 375300@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Guido Guenther <agx@sigxcpu.org>

To: Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr>, Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>, 375300@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: new tar behavior and --wildcards

Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:17:16 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 10:36:20AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 07:02:15AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > > Debian still has to provide an upgrade path for users upgrading from Sarge.
> > > We cannot blindly break users scripts.
> > 
> > Here, the only way seems to be putting an entry in NEWS.Debian (for
> > users script, ie things not under our control).
> 
> In addition, I would suggest we reinstate the previous behaviour, but
> display a warning when wildcards are used but --wildcards is not set.
> The warning would tell people about the migration and explains they must
> fix their scripts to use --wildcards before upgrading to etch+1.
I can only second that - we really should support our users at least
that much (see point 4 in the social contract). Breaking users' scripts
in these ways needs more than a simple note in NEWS.Debian (you'll get
dozens of them when upgrading from sarge to etch).
Cheers,
 -- Guido

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #106 received at 375300@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Anthony DeRobertis <anthony@derobert.net>

Cc: Petr Vandrovec <vandrove@vc.cvut.cz>, 375300@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Michael Biebl <biebl@teco.edu>, Chris Hanson <cph@debian.org>, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@v7w.com>, Neil Williams <linux@codehelp.co.uk>

Subject: Re: new tar behavior and --wildcards

Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 21:46:22 -0400

Bdale Garbee wrote:

>    The following table summarizes pattern-matching default values:
>
>    Members                Default settings
>    ------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Inclusion              `--no-wildcards --anchored
>                            --no-wildcards-match-slash'
>    Exclusion              `--wildcards --no-anchored
>                            --wildcards-match-slash'
>
>    ---------- Footnotes ----------

Will this break my Amanda config? I'm not sure what flags Amanda passes
to tar, but I'm pretty syre I have no control (absent changing the
source, of course) over them.

Do I need to worry now which version of tar is installed on each machine
being backed up by Amanda? That'll be fun :-(

Message #111 received at 375300@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Pierre HABOUZIT <madcoder@debian.org>

To: 375300@bugs.debian.org

Subject: diff for 2.59-0.3 NMU

Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 17:01:45 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

Attached is the diff for my apt-listchanges 2.59-0.3 NMU.

-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

[apt-listchanges-2.59-0.3-nmu.diff (text/plain, attachment)]

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #122 received at 375300@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org>

To: Pierre HABOUZIT <madcoder@debian.org>, 375300@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#375300: diff for 2.59-0.3 NMU

Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 22:53:05 -0700

On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 05:01:45PM +0200, Pierre HABOUZIT wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Attached is the diff for my apt-listchanges 2.59-0.3 NMU.

Thanks.

-- 
 - mdz

Message #127 received at 375300-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org>

To: 375300-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#375300: fixed in apt-listchanges 2.60

Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 09:47:03 -0700

Source: apt-listchanges
Source-Version: 2.60

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
apt-listchanges, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

apt-listchanges_2.60.dsc
  to pool/main/a/apt-listchanges/apt-listchanges_2.60.dsc
apt-listchanges_2.60.tar.gz
  to pool/main/a/apt-listchanges/apt-listchanges_2.60.tar.gz
apt-listchanges_2.60_all.deb
  to pool/main/a/apt-listchanges/apt-listchanges_2.60_all.deb



A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 375300@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> (supplier of updated apt-listchanges package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:25:39 +0200
Source: apt-listchanges
Binary: apt-listchanges
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.60
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org>
Changed-By: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org>
Description: 
 apt-listchanges - Display change history from .deb archives
Closes: 133306 251084 259171 260295 260534 262603 280323 283357 285440 292739 293594 293594 294948 297242 302548 308744 315174 318496 318498 318499 327508 330195 332443 341845 375300 375748 375953 375956 380759
Changes: 
 apt-listchanges (2.60) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * Change of maintainer (and upstream):
     + put myself as maintainer.
     + put Matt into Uploaders (thanks for all your work on this package !).
     + ack NMUs (Closes: #251084, 259171, 260295, 260534, 262603, 280323,
       283357, 285440, 292739, 293594, 293594, 294948, 375300, 375953, 375956,
       380759)
     + update debian/copyright accordingly.
   * Python policy last touch:
     + do not use dh_python anymore.
     + .pyc are handled correctly (Closes: #133306).
   * Bump DH_COMPAT to 5.
   * Ensure ucf is here before purging in postrm (Closes: #315174).
   * apt-listchanges new translations:
     + Traditional Chinese thanks to Kanru Chen (Closes: #297242).
     + Czech thanks to Miroslav Kure (Closes: #327508).
   * apt-listchanges templates po:
     + Portuguese templates thanks to Miguel Figueiredo (Closes: #330195).
     + Swedish update thanks to Daniel Nylander (Closes: #332443, 375748).
     + Japanese update thanks to Junichi Uekawa (Closes: #318499).
     + Vietnamese thanks to Clytie Siddall (Closes: #308744).
   * BTS Patches:
     + Make more strings translateable thanks to Junichi too (Closes: #318496).
     + Fix pot file generation (Closes: #318498, 302548).
     + Fix frontend=none behaviour thanks to Colin Watson (Closes: #341845).
Files: 
 a01cf877d67a76934fb179c32073087d 651 utils optional apt-listchanges_2.60.dsc
 2dde74cf7be4e8836aa76a5930e641f0 80523 utils optional apt-listchanges_2.60.tar.gz
 52eabd8d056d655762b47ac2f3c2c945 54290 utils optional apt-listchanges_2.60_all.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFE21/PvGr7W6HudhwRAmCBAKCfFoqehxyzzcaQS8dsxrcldYOtBwCgmJv/
X5aGLaVehbRFKkaxtdCl4lM=
=mWpB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.