Debian Bug report logs - #442668
reprepro: newer BDB

Toggle useless messages

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

From: Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: reprepro: newer BDB

Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:53:36 -0400

Package: reprepro
Version: 2.2.4-1
User: pkg-db-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: oldbdb db4.3

Please switch your package to db4.6 so we can get rid of db4.3.

Message #10 received at 442668@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Bernhard R. Link" <brlink@debian.org>

To: 442668@bugs.debian.org

Subject: reprepro: newer BDB

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:39:32 +0100

package reprepro
severity 442668 wishlist
thanks

To document a bit about the state of this:

While it might be possible to switch to a newer libdb, I don't want to
do so before I can properly test it with the new code, which includes
putting it in private production use, which includes working on etch.

So if you wan to drop lidb4.3, please make a backport of the version
you think people should be using instead available some time (I guess
half a year should suffice) before.

Thanks in advance,
	Bernhard R. Link

Message #19 received at 442668-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Bernhard R. Link" <brlink@debian.org>

To: Luk Claes <luk@debian.org>

Cc: debian-release@lists.debian.org, 442668-quiet@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: severity of 442668 is serious

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:22:10 +0200

* Luk Claes <luk@debian.org> [080926 05:50]:
> # we want to get rid of db4.3
> severity 442668 serious

Could I please get any explanation for this?

The only reason I'm not instantly reverting that change and requesting
it to not be touched before lenny is released is that is was done by
someone in the release team, so I'm willing to concede I might miss some
bits from an larger picture noone told me about.

Is this a request to make a last-minute disruptive change upload before
the release (it might only be a few chars in the source, but I'd be less
frightened about several hundered untested line changes than the change
from one libdb version to another frommy experience with those)?

If yes, then please express this explicitly and I'll do an according
upload.

IF this is a target by the release team, I really want to ask for some
improved documentation of such issues the next time. Escalating a
maintainer request (without any action from the maintainers on my
requests for helping the transition with an backport so I can do the
switch before lenny release (mostly only irc, though)), to some release
issue silently is not what I deem a prior notice.

If it is not and just some mistake, please ignore my angry reply and
tell me that I can switch severity back till lenny release...

Thanks in advance,
	Bernhard R. Link

Message #24 received at 442668-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: "Bernhard R. Link" <brlink@debian.org>

Cc: debian-release@lists.debian.org, 442668-quiet@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: severity of 442668 is serious

Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:19:54 -0700

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:22:10PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Luk Claes <luk@debian.org> [080926 05:50]:
> > # we want to get rid of db4.3
> > severity 442668 serious

> Could I please get any explanation for this?

Redundant versions of BDB in the archive unnecessarily bloat the release and
Debian's install footprint, and impose a burden on the Debian DB packaging
team.  There are currently five versions of BDB in lenny, whereas there are
only 7 packages in lenny that depend on db4.3 - *all* of which ought to have
transitioned off of it at least a year ago (when db4.6 became available;
db4.4 became available in 2005, but was not free of regressions for all use
cases).  And all but three of these are fixed in unstable.  It is not
justifiable for apps that make only the most basic use of BDB, as reprepro
does, to get to keep their own copy of libdb for a release.

> Is this a request to make a last-minute disruptive change upload before
> the release (it might only be a few chars in the source, but I'd be less
> frightened about several hundered untested line changes than the change
> from one libdb version to another frommy experience with those)?

Maybe if you had looked at this back in December when you were asked,
instead of making the absurd request of a stable backport as a precondition
of maintaining your package, you wouldn't find it so frightening now?

It's arrogant to think that your package needs special handling for the
"disruptive" change from db4.3 to db4.6, when dozens of packages have
already made this transition without incident.  I've reviewed the reprepro
source code, and there's nothing extraordinary about its use of BDB -
nothing that should break when switching to db4.6, and nothing (such as
transactions) that requires special upgrade handling.

> If yes, then please express this explicitly and I'll do an according
> upload.

Consider it made explicit; please upload.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Message #29 received at 442668-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: brlink@debian.org (Bernhard R. Link)

To: 442668-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#442668: fixed in reprepro 3.5.2-4

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:47:05 +0000

Source: reprepro
Source-Version: 3.5.2-4

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

reprepro_3.5.2-4.diff.gz
  to pool/main/r/reprepro/reprepro_3.5.2-4.diff.gz
reprepro_3.5.2-4.dsc
  to pool/main/r/reprepro/reprepro_3.5.2-4.dsc
reprepro_3.5.2-4_sparc.deb
  to pool/main/r/reprepro/reprepro_3.5.2-4_sparc.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 442668@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Bernhard R. Link <brlink@debian.org> (supplier of updated reprepro 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: 1.8
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:31:31 CEST
Source: reprepro
Binary: reprepro
Architecture: source sparc
Version: 3.5.2-4
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Bernhard R. Link <brlink@debian.org>
Changed-By: Bernhard R. Link <brlink@debian.org>
Description: 
 reprepro   - Debian package repository producer
Closes: 442668
Changes: 
 reprepro (3.5.2-4) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * change to use libdb4.6 (Closes: #442668)
Checksums-Sha256: 
 728de7affecbbaf192d32fed94fa753e2541dd2c7a9b0e54b78fa22c1beb21c6 1346 reprepro_3.5.2-4.dsc
 7e6be35d46c0d27e0195dfb6d735bf2f7fc8e3d580d85dad83b133613a4ffa70 10918 reprepro_3.5.2-4.diff.gz
 2a006af00a9c21b8bb23cab263f642df2bdf9ba7aedfda0e0f7929be15ffd592 332750 reprepro_3.5.2-4_sparc.deb
Checksums-Sha1: 
 a12eb29759a1026f0011744572ae662135fe20ef 1346 reprepro_3.5.2-4.dsc
 6610d8f7b0c47ce4783d9060075fb12565a23c90 10918 reprepro_3.5.2-4.diff.gz
 29c949cbf38d72a613ea2b2befefd01a58230ba8 332750 reprepro_3.5.2-4_sparc.deb
Files: 
 58d76abcc3e2617fecbe4cf8e9c0ded8 1346 utils extra reprepro_3.5.2-4.dsc
 0293edd53b907a2163aad1788701e744 10918 utils extra reprepro_3.5.2-4.diff.gz
 c79f86b21fc64f0fba68d4023035dfaf 332750 utils extra reprepro_3.5.2-4_sparc.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iQCVAwUBSOHx/VsyKVgPHZLaAQLFkQP+PvyTpdYlCEHRZYGyXkKgBfaySuJ8NzHa
Tk85PPxKfrA0NjBSD2LtNO1wIi8ml8aN+XenzL+pCcUt2q/IeBsrxqGMlqYIUiki
JZZIgOeSUC0Hp1myoQaBnBPueBh9fquxW96W7w2C3LmfSzq2De/mXrOB1xmZj4Hm
2ePVKiuPCVI=
=sCGY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #34 received at 442668-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Bernhard R. Link" <brlink@debian.org>

To: 442668-quiet@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Some last remarks to this bug

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 10:13:37 +0200

Some final remarks I want to make about this issue:

1) I do not trust libdb at all. It had too many annoying and surprising
   bugs, like it just silently corrupting databases when multiple
   subdatabases were opened for writing at the same time (an issue that
   was never documented to not work, the only acknoledgement of it was
   when it was fixed).

2) I did look at all documentation back when the bug was filed and I
   know that there is no *documented* upgrading issues with those
   versions for reprepro. The problem is what other issues are there
   that are not documented. (Having a setup (subdatabases) that were
   prone to break in the past does not make be very confident those
   are properly tested. Not using any of the new-fangled stuff in
   active developlement where documented upgrade issues are only
   makes me more uneasy because of using modes not that actively looked
   at). Given the issues of the past, I do not consider some test-suite
   runs of reprepro to have a good chance to catch those issues, but
   I'd really have liked to be able to do some tests in production
   environment.

3) I do not think anyone will claim that upgrading my production systems
   to testing a year before a release is even planed is something that
   could have been requested from me. If the request to the library
   maintainers to make a backport is "absurd" then I do not see why it
   should be less absurd to require me to make it.

4) There was some misunderstanding about the time frame for those
   library removals and the plans for the release process.
   While every misunderstanding can be cured by the person
   misunderstanding things asking more stuff, I really think there
   are some lessons learned by future release teams how to avoid some
   misunderstandings. Any of the following might have easily avoided the
   misunderstanding:

   - any hint about the bug submitter that this might be related to
   release process (or if there was any mandate from release team).
   - any hint from the release team in this bug report (or to me)
   that this is a goal for lenny
   - any hints in any freeze announcements, on the lists of release
   goals or to a post to any mailinglist (including debian-release,
   which I also subscribed to several months ago because of this issue),
   that there is something planed about those libraries, or even only
   that libraries not mentioned anywhere does not mean nothing is planed.

5) I'd really have liked a more descriptive way to contacting me than
   just raising severity of some old bug with virtually no comment.
   From my point of view that is just like suddenly raising severity
   of an year old wishlist bug to package a upstream preview of the next
   upstream version with some "we want feature <foo>" message.

Thanks in advance next time,
	Bernhard R. Link

Message #39 received at 442668-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: brlink@debian.org (Bernhard R. Link)

To: 442668-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#442668: fixed in reprepro 3.6.1-2

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:17:32 +0000

Source: reprepro
Source-Version: 3.6.1-2

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

reprepro_3.6.1-2.diff.gz
  to pool/main/r/reprepro/reprepro_3.6.1-2.diff.gz
reprepro_3.6.1-2.dsc
  to pool/main/r/reprepro/reprepro_3.6.1-2.dsc
reprepro_3.6.1-2_sparc.deb
  to pool/main/r/reprepro/reprepro_3.6.1-2_sparc.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 442668@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Bernhard R. Link <brlink@debian.org> (supplier of updated reprepro 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: 1.8
Date: Mon,  6 Oct 2008 10:16:21 CEST
Source: reprepro
Binary: reprepro
Architecture: source sparc
Version: 3.6.1-2
Distribution: experimental
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Bernhard R. Link <brlink@debian.org>
Changed-By: Bernhard R. Link <brlink@debian.org>
Description: 
 reprepro   - Debian package repository producer
Closes: 442668
Changes: 
 reprepro (3.6.1-2) experimental; urgency=low
 .
   * change to use libdb4.6 by default (Closes: 442668)
     to enable upgrades from unstable to experimental
Checksums-Sha256: 
 459ca200b10786ca3be83ea1520c9a2bfb7329ea5c1fd5eede91fd858730a7cc 1343 reprepro_3.6.1-2.dsc
 1786ad19e3f613a65fe2d4981fbc2a5dffc7fc48623a0c4e079d9cfeb05dd215 9253 reprepro_3.6.1-2.diff.gz
 c9566d58b9fa980dae2fe24bc71faacf63a4661484d7a28a0735b85b3c12411b 333820 reprepro_3.6.1-2_sparc.deb
Checksums-Sha1: 
 57234a3f5173e51f3cb168e21de18a2f45af62cc 1343 reprepro_3.6.1-2.dsc
 a6c6bf40ace27cc4554d9ce7c235fac83df74d37 9253 reprepro_3.6.1-2.diff.gz
 a9ff42ad20ed9683809e724329ea2034a589e186 333820 reprepro_3.6.1-2_sparc.deb
Files: 
 4bdc08d41eb952e16bda700e49ffa1ee 1343 utils extra reprepro_3.6.1-2.dsc
 35ec1cd37929eba8237748baae950b1c 9253 utils extra reprepro_3.6.1-2.diff.gz
 2ea619479923a50f08f4dae80c523257 333820 utils extra reprepro_3.6.1-2_sparc.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iQCVAwUBSOnJZ1syKVgPHZLaAQJkQgP/TGmYxfiMsnSAyiFK5bH7WJm0T7XU5xCB
1EZUI9E9wxOyr/jrOYZxkvgnuhtf6cEdVkAcjbWz7kWNnBrE/2nh18qtThjk1lVP
9lfzMXrWTbZ5K9mAH56Ny2pYASwTuYBrsw2NKZZ2NJrzrlwBqjvMLiHE91ZnyIY6
1a8MqRPfJoY=
=uqLV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.