Debian Bug report logs - #670633
not usable because libxml2.so.* are moved to Multi-Arch path

Toggle useless messages

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

From: Francesco Potortì <Potorti@isti.cnr.it>

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

Subject: libxml2: missing link from /usr/lib

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:39:23 +0200

Package: libxml2
Version: 2.7.8.dfsg-9
Severity: normal

In order to have Apache module proxy_html work, I had to do

# ln -s /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libxml2.so.2 /usr/lib/libxml2.so.2

-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'testing-proposed-updates')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.0.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.ISO-8859-15, LC_CTYPE=it_IT.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages libxml2 depends on:
ii  libc6              2.13-30
ii  multiarch-support  2.13-30
ii  zlib1g             1:1.2.6.dfsg-2

Versions of packages libxml2 recommends:
ii  xml-core  0.13

libxml2 suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information

-- debsums errors found:
debsums: package libxml2 is not installed

Message #10 received at 670572@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Aron Xu <happyaron.xu@gmail.com>

To: Francesco Potortì <Potorti@isti.cnr.it>, 670572@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Debian Apache Maintainers <debian-apache@lists.debian.org>, Debian Bug Tracking System <control@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Re: [xml/sgml-pkgs] Bug#670572: libxml2: missing link from /usr/lib

Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:22:24 +0800

clone 670572 -1
retitle -1 not usable because libxml2.so.* are moved to Multi-Arch path
severity -1 serious
reassign -1 src:mod-proxy-html
block 670572 by -1
thanks

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 21:39, Francesco Potortì <Potorti@isti.cnr.it> wrote:
> Package: libxml2
> Version: 2.7.8.dfsg-9
> Severity: normal
>
> In order to have Apache module proxy_html work, I had to do
>
> # ln -s /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libxml2.so.2 /usr/lib/libxml2.so.2
>

Cloned the bug and reassigned to mod-proxy-html and CC'ed Apache
maintainers to the thread. I'm wondering if this is a single case of
problem in mod-proxy-html or a more general one for other Apache
modules.

I'm not convinced to add such a link, as it could be harmful for other
applications when you have more than one architectures installed.



-- 
Regards,
Aron Xu

Message #29 received at 670633@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emmanuel Lacour <elacour@home-dn.net>

To: 670633@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Processed: found 670633 mod-proxy-html/3.0.1-1

Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:50:30 +0200

mod_proxy_html is now included in apache 2.4 which is in experimental
and will be soon in unstable.
mod_proxy_html is going to be replaced by a transitional empty package,
hence I won't fix this issue.

Message #34 received at 670633@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stefan Fritsch <sf@sfritsch.de>

To: debian-apache@lists.debian.org

Cc: Aron Xu <happyaron.xu@gmail.com>, 670572@bugs.debian.org, 670633@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [xml/sgml-pkgs] Bug#670572: libxml2: missing link from /usr/lib

Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:10:05 +0200

On Friday 27 April 2012, Aron Xu wrote:
> clone 670572 -1
> retitle -1 not usable because libxml2.so.* are moved to Multi-Arch
> path severity -1 serious
> reassign -1 src:mod-proxy-html
> block 670572 by -1
> thanks
> 
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 21:39, Francesco Potortì 
<Potorti@isti.cnr.it> wrote:
> > Package: libxml2
> > Version: 2.7.8.dfsg-9
> > Severity: normal
> > 
> > In order to have Apache module proxy_html work, I had to do
> > 
> > # ln -s /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libxml2.so.2
> > /usr/lib/libxml2.so.2
> 
> Cloned the bug and reassigned to mod-proxy-html and CC'ed Apache
> maintainers to the thread. I'm wondering if this is a single case
> of problem in mod-proxy-html or a more general one for other
> Apache modules.

This may hit more modules. Ubuntu has a similar bug report for 
mod_security (LP 988819).


> I'm not convinced to add such a link, as it could be harmful for
> other applications when you have more than one architectures
> installed.

I agree, such a link should be avoided.

I see two possible solutions:

- Make the result of "dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_MULTIARCH" 
available as envvar, so that modules can use it in their config. E.g.
"LoadFile /usr/lib/${DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH}/libxml2.so.2". This would 
break with non-multiarch versions of libxml2, but that's acceptable.

- Make the module actually link against the libraries that it uses. 
This can cause havoc if different versions of the same library are 
pulled, but I think this should normally not happen in Debian. FWIW, 
this is the approach taken with the mod_proxy_html included in apache2 
2.4.

I prefer the second option but if some module maintainers want to use 
the first option, that's ok with me, too.

Message #39 received at 670633@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

To: Stefan Fritsch <sf@sfritsch.de>, 670572@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-apache@lists.debian.org, Aron Xu <happyaron.xu@gmail.com>, 670633@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#670572: [xml/sgml-pkgs] Bug#670572: libxml2: missing link from /usr/lib

Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:33:26 +0200

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

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 13:10:05 +0200, Stefan Fritsch wrote:

> "LoadFile /usr/lib/${DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH}/libxml2.so.2". This would 
> break with non-multiarch versions of libxml2, but that's acceptable.
> 
A simple "LoadFile libxml2.so.2" doesn't work?  Or any other way to make
it obey the normal dlopen search path?

Cheers,
Julien

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

Message #44 received at 670633@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stefan Fritsch <sf@sfritsch.de>

To: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

Cc: 670572@bugs.debian.org, debian-apache@lists.debian.org, Aron Xu <happyaron.xu@gmail.com>, 670633@bugs.debian.org, 670247@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#670572: [xml/sgml-pkgs] Bug#670572: libxml2: missing link from /usr/lib

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 21:26:58 +0200 (CEST)

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012, Julien Cristau wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 13:10:05 +0200, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>
>> "LoadFile /usr/lib/${DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH}/libxml2.so.2". This would
>> break with non-multiarch versions of libxml2, but that's acceptable.
>>
> A simple "LoadFile libxml2.so.2" doesn't work?  Or any other way to make
> it obey the normal dlopen search path?

Unfortunately, Apache treats all non-absolute pathnames as relative to the 
server root directory. It will never pass a non-absoulute path to 
dlopen(). But we could change it to only do this if the relative pathname 
contains at least one slash.

I will ask the other upstream developers what they think of such a change.

Message #49 received at 670633@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stefan Fritsch <sf@sfritsch.de>

To: 670572@bugs.debian.org, 670633@bugs.debian.org, 670247@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-apache@lists.debian.org, Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>, Aron Xu <happyaron.xu@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#670572: [xml/sgml-pkgs] Bug#670572: libxml2: missing link from /usr/lib

Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 18:02:33 +0200

On Monday 30 April 2012, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 13:10:05 +0200, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> >> "LoadFile /usr/lib/${DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH}/libxml2.so.2". This
> >> would break with non-multiarch versions of libxml2, but that's
> >> acceptable.
> > 
> > A simple "LoadFile libxml2.so.2" doesn't work?  Or any other way
> > to make it obey the normal dlopen search path?
> 
> Unfortunately, Apache treats all non-absolute pathnames as relative
> to the server root directory. It will never pass a non-absoulute
> path to dlopen(). But we could change it to only do this if the
> relative pathname contains at least one slash.

Implemented that slightly differently: If the lib is not found in the 
server-root and the pathname has no slash, re-try with dlopen-search 
path. I have just uploaded apache 2.2.22-5. With it, a simple 
"LoadFile libxml2.so.2" should do the trick. I think this is now the 
preferred solution.

Message #56 received at 670633@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Aron Xu <happyaron.xu@gmail.com>

To: Emmanuel Lacour <elacour@home-dn.net>

Cc: 670633@bugs.debian.org, Stefan Fritsch <sf@sfritsch.de>, debian-apache@lists.debian.org, Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug #670633 not usable because libxml2.so.* are moved to Multi-Arch path

Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 11:45:34 +0800

Hi Emmanuel,

It seems an update on this package is needed, as we are probably not
able to make Apache 2.4 into testing before Wheezy's freeze, in other
words we have a rather big chance to release Wheezy with current
version of Apache. Though, I'm not part of the Apache maintainers, who
may give us more information.

-- 
Regards,
Aron Xu

Message #63 received at 670633@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>

To: 670633@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Debian Bug Tracking System <control@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: mod-proxy-html: diff for NMU version 3.0.1-1.1

Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 17:27:03 +0800

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

tags 670633 + patch
tags 670633 + pending
thanks

Dear maintainer,

I've prepared an NMU for mod-proxy-html (versioned as 3.0.1-1.1) and
uploaded it to DELAYED/5. Please feel free to tell me if I
should delay it longer.

--
Regards,
Aron Xu

[mod-proxy-html-3.0.1-1.1-nmu.diff (application/octet-stream, attachment)]

Message #70 received at 670633@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>

To: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, 670633@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#670633: mod-proxy-html: diff for NMU version 3.0.1-1.1

Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 13:41:57 +0200

(I'm not the maintainer.)

>+mod-proxy-html (3.0.1-1.1) unstable; urgency=medium
>+
>+  * Non-maintainer upload.
>+  * Modify the path of libxml2.so.2 in conf file, update the minmal
>+    version of apache2 (Closes: #670633).

Typo: minmal -> minimal.

>+  * debian/compat: 4 -> 9.
>+  * debian/rules:
>+    - Replace dh_clean -k with dh_prep.

These changes are not appropriate for an NMU.

>+    - Add build-arch and build-indep target.

OK.

>+  * debian/dirs: removed, useless.
>+  * debian/source/format: 3.0 (quilt)
>+  * std-ver: 3.8.0 -> 3.9.3

These changes are not appropriate for an NMU.

You also removed version constraint from (build-)dependency on 
libxml2-dev. This is not documented.

-- 
Jakub Wilk

Message #75 received at 670633@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>

To: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>, 670633@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#670633: mod-proxy-html: diff for NMU version 3.0.1-1.1

Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 19:45:54 +0800

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org> wrote:
> (I'm not the maintainer.)
>

Again, please read other reports before claiming something is "not
appropriate", the maintainer of mod-proxy-html has said he will not
fix the problem.

I don't think wasting your time by reviewing such NMUs and claiming
"foo is not appropriate nor bar" is a good idea than working on more
true stuff on your plate (I guess you have plenty).

Just my 2 cents.

--
Regards,
Aron Xu

Message #78 received at 670633@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>

To: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, 670633@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#670633: mod-proxy-html: diff for NMU version 3.0.1-1.1

Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 15:25:45 +0200

* Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, 2012-05-31, 19:45:
>>(I'm not the maintainer.)
>Again,

Again?

>please read other reports before claiming something is "not 
>appropriate",

I read Developer's Reference 5.11.1, that should be enough.
But yes, I did read the bug log, too.

>the maintainer of mod-proxy-html has said he will not fix the problem.

False and irrelevant. Also, the maintainer's answer was based of the 
false premise that Apache 2.4 is going to be uploaded to unstable soon.

>I don't think wasting your time by reviewing such NMUs and claiming 
>"foo is not appropriate nor bar" is a good idea than working on more 
>true stuff on your plate (I guess you have plenty).

There's a simple way to stop me from doing reviews of your NMUs: don't 
NMU. It's a good idea anyway if you can't follow the basic rules. Thanks 
for considering.

-- 
Jakub Wilk

Message #83 received at 670633@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>

To: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, 670633@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#670633: mod-proxy-html: diff for NMU version 3.0.1-1.1

Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 21:40:27 +0800

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org> wrote:
> * Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, 2012-05-31, 19:45:
>>>
>>> (I'm not the maintainer.)
>>
>> Again,
>
>
> Again?
>

Again.

>> please read other reports before claiming something is "not appropriate",
>
>
> I read Developer's Reference 5.11.1, that should be enough.
> But yes, I did read the bug log, too.
>
>> the maintainer of mod-proxy-html has said he will not fix the problem.
>
>
> False and irrelevant. Also, the maintainer's answer was based of the false
> premise that Apache 2.4 is going to be uploaded to unstable soon.
>

Your claim is a very weak one. If you have read the bug log, you'll
know that I've pinged the maintainer about Apache 2.4 will probably
not make its way to Wheezy some days ago. Also, you are not the
maintainer and you can't ask people to be obligated to your personal
claim about what is appropriate.

If the maintainer is objective to the NMU, then it's he, who will
speak up and I'll act as he wish. There is NMU notification, there is
NMU delay, then you'd better not bother to do such blame.

>> I don't think wasting your time by reviewing such NMUs and claiming "foo
>> is not appropriate nor bar" is a good idea than working on more true stuff
>> on your plate (I guess you have plenty).
>
>
> There's a simple way to stop me from doing reviews of your NMUs: don't NMU.
> It's a good idea anyway if you can't follow the basic rules. Thanks for
> considering.
>

Another option is just ignoring your emails of such topic in the
futre, if you want. You are not the ruler to those NMUs, and the
maintainer whose package is being NMUed is. So what you said about
"basic rule" is simply your rule.


--
Best Regards,
Aron Xu

Message #88 received at 670633@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>

To: 670633@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>

Subject: invasive NMUs are not appropriate

Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:35:44 +0800

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

It is not appropriate to use NMUs to change packages in ways that are
unrelated to the bugs you are fixing, please refrain from doing that.

http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#nmu-guidelines

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

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

Message #93 received at 670633@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>

To: Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>

Cc: 670633@bugs.debian.org, Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>

Subject: Re: invasive NMUs are not appropriate

Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:15:04 +0800

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> wrote:
> It is not appropriate to use NMUs to change packages in ways that are
> unrelated to the bugs you are fixing, please refrain from doing that.
>
> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#nmu-guidelines
>

I would like to repeat again that if you are the maintainer and you
think it's not appropriate, then I'll do what you wish. Of course I
will do measurement for every package about what are possibly
acceptable and what are not, the situation varies from one package to
another.

But if you are not the maintainer, please don't just jump in and say
"foo is not appropriate nor bar", which just wastes your time on
working more stuff that are in need of your help. I would like to
thank you for your contributions to other parts of Debian and they are
really splendid work, but I feel not that thankful on this particular
topic.

Everyone has his own opinions on other people's NMUing their packages,
some of them think NMU is generally bad, while some of them just place
their name in the LowNMU list. But people aren't machine, which
sometimes hold a boolen value regarding something.

I agree that appropriate NMU notification and reasonable delay is very
well needed, and at some degree it's even better to tell them this NMU
is not for invading (reminds me about modifying the mail template of
nmudiff), but I sincerely disagree that following the practice in
devref is a reason for you to jump in and bugging people from time to
time, just like pushing them as Policy. In the end, they are not
Policy, but only "reference", which is telling people they are proven
to be safe and sometimes be easy to do when you don't know how.
Whether an NMU is welcomed is up to the maintainer's choice, but not a
random person who holds his own rules and saying please read whatever
section in devref as policy.

For some of my packages, I do think that NMU changes too much is bad,
but NMUing important bugs (like security) when I am not able to react
quick enough is highly appreciated; for some others that I maintain,
I'm sincerely feeling grateful when someone is NMUing them and wish
they can incorporate some changes that I've committed but not uploaded
due to whatever reason.

--
Regards,
Aron Xu

Message #98 received at 670633-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>

To: 670633-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#670633: fixed in mod-proxy-html 3.0.1-1.1

Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 09:48:48 +0000

Source: mod-proxy-html
Source-Version: 3.0.1-1.1

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

libapache2-mod-proxy-html_3.0.1-1.1_sparc.deb
  to main/m/mod-proxy-html/libapache2-mod-proxy-html_3.0.1-1.1_sparc.deb
mod-proxy-html_3.0.1-1.1.diff.gz
  to main/m/mod-proxy-html/mod-proxy-html_3.0.1-1.1.diff.gz
mod-proxy-html_3.0.1-1.1.dsc
  to main/m/mod-proxy-html/mod-proxy-html_3.0.1-1.1.dsc



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 670633@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Aron Xu <aron@debian.org> (supplier of updated mod-proxy-html 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: SHA512

Format: 1.8
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 08:59:37 +0000
Source: mod-proxy-html
Binary: libapache2-mod-proxy-html
Architecture: source sparc
Version: 3.0.1-1.1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Emmanuel Lacour <elacour@home-dn.net>
Changed-By: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>
Description: 
 libapache2-mod-proxy-html - Apache2 filter module for HTML links rewriting
Closes: 670633
Changes: 
 mod-proxy-html (3.0.1-1.1) unstable; urgency=medium
 .
   * Non-maintainer upload.
   * Modify the path of libxml2.so.2 in conf file, update the minmal
     version of apache2 (Closes: #670633).
   * debian/compat: 4 -> 9.
   * debian/rules:
     - Replace dh_clean -k with dh_prep.
     - Add build-arch and build-indep target.
   * debian/dirs: removed, useless.
   * debian/source/format: 3.0 (quilt)
   * std-ver: 3.8.0 -> 3.9.3
Checksums-Sha1: 
 225e3ac379cafd75a9613945da3987c997bc3993 1420 mod-proxy-html_3.0.1-1.1.dsc
 45ed2186ed1b3296fbc6413df5de43586296b2ab 3605 mod-proxy-html_3.0.1-1.1.diff.gz
 01fe9c22d36c4e7b3d8847ad703a016d8ad53b8f 27300 libapache2-mod-proxy-html_3.0.1-1.1_sparc.deb
Checksums-Sha256: 
 f401296a4d05a5f9cda3ad388ea19b08f87be368070c0d290842f8d76cceb7b5 1420 mod-proxy-html_3.0.1-1.1.dsc
 afe228ac12890fad99a1cdd95b36b8e1edd2a872c536a5ca621181da021eb966 3605 mod-proxy-html_3.0.1-1.1.diff.gz
 8957f4cbed07758d11e7408c21f0cdd0c9710b9c077977ace333220ccf220c85 27300 libapache2-mod-proxy-html_3.0.1-1.1_sparc.deb
Files: 
 dc6077c33350d19ddc7f9da988380a45 1420 web optional mod-proxy-html_3.0.1-1.1.dsc
 e40bde9a86cf0550ce4839e93084261d 3605 web optional mod-proxy-html_3.0.1-1.1.diff.gz
 c2d84ad32bf101149081d57655240f92 27300 web optional libapache2-mod-proxy-html_3.0.1-1.1_sparc.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJPxeY5AAoJEIAhAkTu07wNIRcH/3ytvfsPsJMOCH6/nzCnhVA0
GiSeFnZkDnIMw/IpljkatlwzyLeN6TuswH9Dr2TjcQZhlkZRLk4j4KbspZIjWEA9
7lyEZoyBhtT8xnwTTPDrkC9NL1pGo1j8L3pkdsg4O7Xh5mFLYys9OKDOK0XxwLvu
mJKtS3gyvrofl3rKOw3UvGEiCx6YShUX8PH5yrbCgDnHDYJ1NsWUEpmSwcbWu6OP
cFBjMUF+sTN/suLGiUfGCuBHr7kUMdzA4DFqDixDa0RNrWxHSYHP359g3ljRD1xi
783bMGnbqW9q3EmLXlC4vQBs+i3aGfkyudSIKZgoPr6EJoUNillIw8ZXWQTNI4s=
=Qi2U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.