Debian Bug report logs - #749355
parallel: /usr/bin/parallel conflicts with moreutils' parallel

Toggle useless messages

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

From: Michele Orru` <maker@python.it>

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

Subject: parallel: /usr/bin/parallel conflicts with moreutils' parallel

Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 17:48:41 +0200

Package: parallel
Version: 20130922-1
Severity: important

Dear Maintainer,

at the moment, the package parallel/testing conflicts with moreutils/testing, as
both are shipping the binary /usr/bin/parallel. There's no need for such
conflict; in wheezy for example, moreutils' parallel is located in
parallel.moreoutils.

I'm dropping down here some fragments of the discussion I've had on
#debian-next. Hope they might be useful for you.
<babilen> moreutil's parallel should have just been replaced by the GNU version,
          but that discussion is *old*
<themill> (in wheezy, parallel just diverts /usr/bin/parallel.moreutils)
<themill>  It would be appropriate to file a bug against parallel here --
          there's no need for that conflict and I don't believe that policy
          permits ot

If there's any way I could help fixing this, I would be glad to offer my help.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (1024, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.13-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

Versions of packages parallel depends on:
ii  perl          5.18.2-4
ii  perl-modules  5.18.2-4

parallel recommends no packages.

parallel suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information

Message #10 received at 749355@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>

To: Michele Orru` <maker@python.it>, 749355@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#749355: parallel: /usr/bin/parallel conflicts with moreutils' parallel

Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 00:19:44 -0300

Dear Michele,

On May 26 2014, Michele Orru` wrote:
> Dear Maintainer,
> 
> at the moment, the package parallel/testing conflicts with moreutils/testing, as
> both are shipping the binary /usr/bin/parallel. There's no need for such
> conflict; in wheezy for example, moreutils' parallel is located in
> parallel.moreoutils.
> 
> I'm dropping down here some fragments of the discussion I've had on
> #debian-next. Hope they might be useful for you.
> <babilen> moreutil's parallel should have just been replaced by the GNU version,
>           but that discussion is *old*
> <themill> (in wheezy, parallel just diverts /usr/bin/parallel.moreutils)
> <themill>  It would be appropriate to file a bug against parallel here --
>           there's no need for that conflict and I don't believe that policy
>           permits ot
> 
> If there's any way I could help fixing this, I would be glad to offer my
> help.

Thank you for your help. The problems with GNU parallel vs moreutil's
parallel are indeed old as you know.

And these problems are not technical ones, but social ones, which I "fixed"
(actually, worked around) via conflicts clause.

Given the state of the discussions at the time when I decided that the
conflicts was the path of least resistance and that I am sincerely not sure
how things have evolved, I would, yes, appreciate your help with the social
side of things.

BTW, be warned that in current versions of parallel (which I have not yet
packaged, but will soon) the compatibility option with moreutils was pending
to be removed or is removed already, which would make things even harder.


Thanks for your interest and yes, I do appreciate help here.


-- 
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA
http://cynic.cc/blog/ : github.com/rbrito : profiles.google.com/rbrito
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br

Message #15 received at 749355@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michele Orru` <maker@python.it>

To: Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>, 749355@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#749355: parallel: /usr/bin/parallel conflicts with moreutils' parallel

Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 11:17:47 +0200

Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br> writes:

> Given the state of the discussions at the time when I decided that the
> conflicts was the path of least resistance and that I am sincerely not sure
> how things have evolved, I would, yes, appreciate your help with the social
> side of things.

> BTW, be warned that in current versions of parallel (which I have not yet
> packaged, but will soon) the compatibility option with moreutils was pending
> to be removed or is removed already, which would make things even harder.
Wouldn't it be possible to let the user decide by himself via
`update-alternatives`? 

The discussion may converge as well on the default symlink, but at least
one could use some moreutil's tools in pair with gnu parallel. 

For example, consider the following use case: 
$ cat foo.txt | parallel ./bar.sh | sponge foo.txt
Which is right now not possible in debian jessie. 

-- 
m.

Message #20 received at 749355@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: anarcat <anarcat@debian.org>

To: Michele Orru` <maker@python.it>, 749355@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#749355: parallel: /usr/bin/parallel conflicts with moreutils' parallel

Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 11:56:40 -0400

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

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 11:17:47AM +0200, Michele Orru` wrote:
> Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br> writes:
> 
> > Given the state of the discussions at the time when I decided that the
> > conflicts was the path of least resistance and that I am sincerely not sure
> > how things have evolved, I would, yes, appreciate your help with the social
> > side of things.

Could you give us a pointer to that old discussion, or a summary of it?

> > BTW, be warned that in current versions of parallel (which I have not yet
> > packaged, but will soon) the compatibility option with moreutils was pending
> > to be removed or is removed already, which would make things even harder.
> Wouldn't it be possible to let the user decide by himself via
> `update-alternatives`? 

That is actually the way things were working before the Conflicts was
added.

> The discussion may converge as well on the default symlink, but at least
> one could use some moreutil's tools in pair with gnu parallel. 

I would also really appreciate that.

For the record, no package depends on GNU parallel, and only one package
(ikiwiki-hosting-web) has a hard Depends on moreutils. The other
dependencies are Recommends: debci, git-notifiyer and Suggests: cacti,
nagios-plugins-contrib, pkg-perl-tools.
 
> For example, consider the following use case: 
> $ cat foo.txt | parallel ./bar.sh | sponge foo.txt
> Which is right now not possible in debian jessie. 

It's also impossible to use something like --pipe with moreutil's
parallel, which is really annoying and confusing.

A.

-- 
The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to
continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too
expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will
pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of
the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.
                         - Frank Zappa

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

Message #25 received at 749355@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: anarcat <anarcat@debian.org>

To: Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>, 749355@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#749355: parallel: /usr/bin/parallel conflicts with moreutils' parallel

Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 12:13:25 -0400

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

Actually, I found the original discussion here:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=665851

It seems that one of the major issues is that moreutils ships "parallel"
as an upstream, and splitting it out of there will create problems.

But it seems no one objected to the solution of splitting it out in
Debian at least, if the dependent packages are fixed.

Personnally, i would be of the opinion that neither moreutils or
parallel should ship /usr/bin/parallel by default to resolve the
conflict, and then Debian package dependencies can be fixed.

I can try to talk to people at debconf about this to see if I can unglue
this mess directly.

A.

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

Message #30 received at 749355@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>

To: anarcat <anarcat@debian.org>, 749355@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#749355: parallel: /usr/bin/parallel conflicts with moreutils' parallel

Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 13:30:04 -0300

Hi.

On Aug 06 2014, anarcat wrote:
(...)
> But it seems no one objected to the solution of splitting it out in
> Debian at least, if the dependent packages are fixed.

Yes, that would alleviate/solve the problem.

> I can try to talk to people at debconf about this to see if I can unglue
> this mess directly.

Unfortunately, I will not be at this debconf (even though I wanted to), but
if you can talk with Joey, that would be great.


Regards,

-- 
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA
http://cynic.cc/blog/ : github.com/rbrito : profiles.google.com/rbrito
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br

Message #35 received at 749355@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Filippo Giunchedi <filippo@debian.org>

To: Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>

Cc: anarcat <anarcat@debian.org>, 749355@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#749355: parallel: /usr/bin/parallel conflicts with moreutils' parallel

Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 01:51:18 +0100

hi,

On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 01:30:04PM -0300, Rogério Brito wrote:
> > But it seems no one objected to the solution of splitting it out in
> > Debian at least, if the dependent packages are fixed.
> 
> Yes, that would alleviate/solve the problem.

definitely

> > I can try to talk to people at debconf about this to see if I can unglue
> > this mess directly.
> 
> Unfortunately, I will not be at this debconf (even though I wanted to), but
> if you can talk with Joey, that would be great.

do you know if discussion happened at debconf? just came across this on a
jessie system and it is really a sad state right now :(

filippo
-- 
http://esaurito.net - 0x001CDE6A6B79D401 - ⠠⠵

Those three things—autonomy, complexity, and a connection between effort
and reward—are, most people agree, the three qualities that work has to
have if it is to be satisfying.
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Message #40 received at 749355@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org>

To: Filippo Giunchedi <filippo@debian.org>, Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>

Cc: 749355@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#749355: parallel: /usr/bin/parallel conflicts with moreutils' parallel

Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 19:45:14 -0400

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

On 2014-09-26 20:51:18, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
> hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 01:30:04PM -0300, Rogério Brito wrote:
>> > But it seems no one objected to the solution of splitting it out in
>> > Debian at least, if the dependent packages are fixed.
>> 
>> Yes, that would alleviate/solve the problem.
>
> definitely
>
>> > I can try to talk to people at debconf about this to see if I can unglue
>> > this mess directly.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, I will not be at this debconf (even though I wanted to), but
>> if you can talk with Joey, that would be great.
>
> do you know if discussion happened at debconf? just came across this on a
> jessie system and it is really a sad state right now :(

At this point, moreutils doesn't conflict with gnu parallel, and that is
intentional. It is gnu parallel that conflicts with moreutils.

I talked briefly with Joey about this. Obviously, it's a rather annoying
issue for him, since the whole thing went as far as a CTTE bug
(#665851). The result of that discussion were unclear: no decision was
reached by the CTTE.

From what I understand, joey doesn't want to be bothered with this. He
barely has time to maintain moreutils at all and has critical opinion of
gnu parallel, which breaks his ikiwiki-hosting package. Therefore,
ikiwiki-hosting conflicts with gnu parallel.

So I doubt we can coninve Joey to fix this problem the way we are
proposing now, but it's possible.

If someone wants to go forward here, there would need to be a set of
patches that would create conflicting binary packages for both that will
divert /usr/bin/parallel. A patch on ikiwiki-hosting to depend on
moreutils-parallel would also then be necessary.

Then we send this to the moreutils and gnu parallel maintainers to see
if they would accept the fix, and we can simply NMU it.

But the main problem, to restate what Joey has said here, is time: it
takes time to do that work and unless someone steps up to help the
maintainers patiently to clear things up, things will stay as they
currently are.

A.
-- 
Modern man has a kind of poverty of the spirit which stands
in great contrast to his remarkable scientific and technological
achievements. We've learned to walk in outer space and yet we
haven't learned to walk to earth as brothers and sisters.
                        - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

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

Message #45 received at 749355@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mert Dirik <mertdirik@gmail.com>

To: 718816@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Nicolas Schier <nicolas@hjem.rpa.no>, Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>, 749355@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: moreutils: split parallel binary in extra package

Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 13:17:11 +0200

Hi Nicolas,

Thanks for adopting moreutils.

Now that moreutils has a new maintainer, do you consider dealing with 
this issue? It would be very helpful for people who want to install both 
parallel and moreutils together.

Another option would be renaming the parallel binary and using 
alternatives for both packages.

CC'ing parallel maintainer and the related bug in parallel package.

Message #50 received at 749355@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>

To: Mert Dirik <mertdirik@gmail.com>

Cc: 718816@bugs.debian.org, Nicolas Schier <nicolas@hjem.rpa.no>, 749355@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: moreutils: split parallel binary in extra package

Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 22:33:52 -0200

Hi there.

Maintainer of GNU parallel here.

On Dec 03 2014, Mert Dirik wrote:
> Now that moreutils has a new maintainer, do you consider dealing with this
> issue? It would be very helpful for people who want to install both parallel
> and moreutils together.

If the parallel from moreutils is split into a separate binary package, then
I am willing to remove the Conflicts from (GNU) parallel.

> Another option would be renaming the parallel binary and using alternatives
> for both packages.

Alternatives won't work, because the programs don't support compatible
command lines.


Regards,

-- 
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA
http://cynic.cc/blog/ : github.com/rbrito : profiles.google.com/rbrito
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br

Message #55 received at 749355@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Nicolas Schier <nicolas@hjem.rpa.no>

To: Mert Dirik <mertdirik@gmail.com>

Cc: Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>, 718816@bugs.debian.org, 749355@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: moreutils: split parallel binary in extra package

Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 08:53:38 +0100

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

Dear Mert,

when adopting moreutils I wasn't aware of the namespace conflict with 
parallel.  I would like to have a look at the past discussions and at 
the packages that are depending on moreutils and parallel before 
stating something targeting on a resolution.  Please give me some time 
and I'll try to sum up what I will have found.

Kind regards,
Nicolas

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

Message #60 received at 749355@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Nicolas Schier <nicolas@hjem.rpa.no>

To: Mert Dirik <mertdirik@gmail.com>, 718816@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>, 749355@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: moreutils: split parallel binary in extra package

Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2015 22:45:17 +0100

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

Dear Mert,
dear Rogério,

sorry for the long delay.  After roughly skimming through the related 
bugs that I found (#518696, #597050, #665851, #749355, #718816), I 
would like to sum up before proposing a possible solution:

 - There is a simple namespace conflict (/usr/bin/parallel).  Even 
   though it looks like a simple technical issue it seems to be an even 
   bigger social one.

 - The 'default' namespace conflict solution using the alternatives 
   mechanism is considered harmful due to incompatible command line 
   options and functionality between both implementations.

 - According to `apt-cache rdepends` there are packages that have 
   dependencies to moreutils (cacti, debci, git-notifier, etc.) and to 
   parallel (last-align).
    
   As far as I have found, the package depending on GNU parallel does 
   all 'parallel' calls with the '--gnu' option.  moreutils' parallel 
   does not have any option that not also understood by GNU parallel.  
   [1]

Please help me: did I get it right?  Have I missed something important?


Kind regards,
Nicolas


PS: I might be a little bit inresponsive, due to that my personal 
MacBook got a juice shower and currently starts only with bottoms up 
and jump pad touching...


[1]: Simple 'parallel' call analysis done with:
	parallel -i sh -c \
		"apt-get download {} >&2 && dpkg-deb -R {}*deb {} && grep --color=always -HnrIe '\<parallel\>' {}/ ; rm -rf {}*" -- \
		$(apt-cache rdepends parallel moreutils | cut -d\  -f3- | cut -d: -f1 | grep -v -e parallel -e moreutils | sort -u) | \
		sponge

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

Message #65 received at 749355@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mert Dirik <mertdirik@gmail.com>

To: 718816@bugs.debian.org, Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>, 749355@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#749355: moreutils: split parallel binary in extra package

Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 20:38:06 +0200

On 01/01/2015 11:45 PM, Nicolas Schier wrote:
> Dear Mert,
> dear Rogério,
>
> sorry for the long delay.  After roughly skimming through the related
> bugs that I found (#518696, #597050, #665851, #749355, #718816), I
> would like to sum up before proposing a possible solution:
>
>   - There is a simple namespace conflict (/usr/bin/parallel).  Even
>     though it looks like a simple technical issue it seems to be an even
>     bigger social one.
>
>   - The 'default' namespace conflict solution using the alternatives
>     mechanism is considered harmful due to incompatible command line
>     options and functionality between both implementations.
>
>   - According to `apt-cache rdepends` there are packages that have
>     dependencies to moreutils (cacti, debci, git-notifier, etc.) and to
>     parallel (last-align).
|
|
>      
>     As far as I have found, the package depending on GNU parallel does
>     all 'parallel' calls with the '--gnu' option.  moreutils' parallel
>     does not have any option that not also understood by GNU parallel.
>     [1]
>
> Please help me: did I get it right?  Have I missed something important?
>
>
Dear Nicolas,

It looks like a good summary. Thanks for your effort.

I cross checked the results using "apt-rdepends -f 
Depends,PreDepends,Recommends,Suggests -s 
Depends,PreDepends,Recommends,Suggests  --reverse $pkg" and couldn't 
find any other packages.

Further checking their usages:

last-align's dependency looks like a minor one. It only Suggests 
parallel, and uses it in two wrapper scripts [0] that are referenced in 
nowhere [1], and an example script [2].

debci does one invocation of parallel in [3]. It Recommends moreuti|ls 
and uses parallel only when debci-batch is used with -j option, without 
-j it should work fine.

git-notifier and cacti: It seems like they don't use parallel at all.

ikiwiki-hosting-web: Uses it there [4]

nagios-plugins-contrib and pkg-perl-tools: They Suggest moreutils and 
doesn't seem to be using parallel [5], [6]|

[0]: 
http://sources.debian.net/src/last-align/490-1/scripts/parallel-fasta/ 
and http://sources.debian.net/src/last-align/490-1/scripts/parallel-fastq/
[1]: 
https://codesearch.debian.net/results/package%3Alast-align%20parallel/page_0
[2]: 
http://sources.debian.net/src/last-align/490-1/examples/last-bisulfite-paired.sh/
[3]: http://sources.debian.net/src/debci/0.12/bin/debci-batch/?hl=111#L111
[4] 
http://sources.debian.net/src/ikiwiki-hosting/0.20140613/debian/ikiwiki-hosting-web.cron.d/?hl=19#L19
[5]: 
https://codesearch.debian.net/results/package%3Anagios-plugins-contrib%20parallel/
[6]: 
https://codesearch.debian.net/results/package%3Apkg-perl-tools%20parallel/

Message #70 received at 749355@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Filippo Giunchedi <filippo@debian.org>

To: Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org>

Cc: Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>, 749355@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#749355: parallel: /usr/bin/parallel conflicts with moreutils' parallel

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 17:46:15 +0000

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 07:45:14PM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> At this point, moreutils doesn't conflict with gnu parallel, and that is
> intentional. It is gnu parallel that conflicts with moreutils.
> 
> I talked briefly with Joey about this. Obviously, it's a rather annoying
> issue for him, since the whole thing went as far as a CTTE bug
> (#665851). The result of that discussion were unclear: no decision was
> reached by the CTTE.
> 
> From what I understand, joey doesn't want to be bothered with this. He
> barely has time to maintain moreutils at all and has critical opinion of
> gnu parallel, which breaks his ikiwiki-hosting package. Therefore,
> ikiwiki-hosting conflicts with gnu parallel.

understood, thanks for the context!

> So I doubt we can coninve Joey to fix this problem the way we are
> proposing now, but it's possible.
> 
> If someone wants to go forward here, there would need to be a set of
> patches that would create conflicting binary packages for both that will
> divert /usr/bin/parallel. A patch on ikiwiki-hosting to depend on
> moreutils-parallel would also then be necessary.

Is dpkg-divert a strict requirement? Would alternatives suffices (e.g. like
netcat does)?

> Then we send this to the moreutils and gnu parallel maintainers to see
> if they would accept the fix, and we can simply NMU it.
> 
> But the main problem, to restate what Joey has said here, is time: it
> takes time to do that work and unless someone steps up to help the
> maintainers patiently to clear things up, things will stay as they
> currently are.

true, I am willing to give it a shot but we're probably far too late in the
release cycle to get this into jessie (won't be wasted work anyway tho!)

filippo
-- 
http://esaurito.net - 0x99D49B6B00CAD1E5 - ⠠⠵

God may not play dice with the universe, but something strange is going on
with the prime numbers.
-- Paul Erdos

Message #75 received at 749355@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org>

To: Filippo Giunchedi <filippo@debian.org>

Cc: Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>, 749355@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#749355: parallel: /usr/bin/parallel conflicts with moreutils' parallel

Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 21:07:34 -0400

On 2015-02-15 12:46:15, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 07:45:14PM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> So I doubt we can coninve Joey to fix this problem the way we are
>> proposing now, but it's possible.
>> 
>> If someone wants to go forward here, there would need to be a set of
>> patches that would create conflicting binary packages for both that will
>> divert /usr/bin/parallel. A patch on ikiwiki-hosting to depend on
>> moreutils-parallel would also then be necessary.
>
> Is dpkg-divert a strict requirement? Would alternatives suffices (e.g. like
> netcat does)?

No, because the commandline interface is different and would break
packages.

>> Then we send this to the moreutils and gnu parallel maintainers to see
>> if they would accept the fix, and we can simply NMU it.
>> 
>> But the main problem, to restate what Joey has said here, is time: it
>> takes time to do that work and unless someone steps up to help the
>> maintainers patiently to clear things up, things will stay as they
>> currently are.
>
> true, I am willing to give it a shot but we're probably far too late in the
> release cycle to get this into jessie (won't be wasted work anyway tho!)

Indeed.

A>

-- 
You Are What You Is
                        - Frank Zappa

Message #80 received at 749355@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org>

To: Filippo Giunchedi <filippo@debian.org>

Cc: Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>, 749355@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#749355: parallel: /usr/bin/parallel conflicts with moreutils' parallel

Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 11:00:32 -0400

On 2015-03-09 21:07:34, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2015-02-15 12:46:15, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 07:45:14PM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>>> Then we send this to the moreutils and gnu parallel maintainers to see
>>> if they would accept the fix, and we can simply NMU it.
>>> 
>>> But the main problem, to restate what Joey has said here, is time: it
>>> takes time to do that work and unless someone steps up to help the
>>> maintainers patiently to clear things up, things will stay as they
>>> currently are.
>>
>> true, I am willing to give it a shot but we're probably far too late in the
>> release cycle to get this into jessie (won't be wasted work anyway tho!)
>
> Indeed.

So, any progress here?

To make a quick recap here, i believe the strategy is as follows:

 1. moreutils starts installing parallel as parallel.moreutils

 2. gnu parallel starts installing parallel as parallel.gnu

 3. moreutils creates a package named moreutils-parallel that will
    divert parallel.moreutils to parallel

 4. gnu parallel creates a package named parallel-gnu (?)
    that will divert parallel.gnu to parallel

 5. parallel-gnu and moreutils-parallel conflict with each other

 6. ikiwiki-hosting is changed to stop conflicting with parallel

 7. all packages depending (including ikiwiki-hosting) on moreutils or
    gnu (below, $package) are changed to either:

    * use the parallel.$package binary
    * depend on parallel-$package

That way *even* a package like ikwiki-hosting depends on one or the
other package, both binaries can actually be installed at the same time
and "behaving" packages (ie. the ones that use the explicit binary like
parallel.gnu) are not affected.

(In the above, replace "moreutils-parallel" with "parallel-tollef" as
you see fit. See also http://bikeshed.com/.)

Of course, if two packages depend on the conflicting packages, we still
have a problem, but I can't think of a solution for this.

It's my first time dealing with diversions so I hope I got this
right. Any constructive modifications on the above checklists are
welcome here!

A.

-- 
A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new
master once in a term of years.
                         - Lysander Spooner

Message #85 received at 749355@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org>

To: Filippo Giunchedi <filippo@debian.org>

Cc: Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>, 749355@bugs.debian.org, 718816@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#749355: parallel: /usr/bin/parallel conflicts with moreutils' parallel

Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 11:03:37 -0400

Sorry for the duplicate email, but I forgot to CC the other bug report
(in moreutils, #718816, that I didn't realize existed) here, please
followup on this one...

On 2015-03-09 21:07:34, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2015-02-15 12:46:15, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 07:45:14PM -0400, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>>> Then we send this to the moreutils and gnu parallel maintainers to see
>>> if they would accept the fix, and we can simply NMU it.
>>> 
>>> But the main problem, to restate what Joey has said here, is time: it
>>> takes time to do that work and unless someone steps up to help the
>>> maintainers patiently to clear things up, things will stay as they
>>> currently are.
>>
>> true, I am willing to give it a shot but we're probably far too late in the
>> release cycle to get this into jessie (won't be wasted work anyway tho!)
>
> Indeed.

So, any progress here?

To make a quick recap here, i believe the strategy is as follows:

 1. moreutils starts installing parallel as parallel.moreutils

 2. gnu parallel starts installing parallel as parallel.gnu

 3. moreutils creates a package named moreutils-parallel that will
    divert parallel.moreutils to parallel

 4. gnu parallel creates a package named parallel-gnu (?)
    that will divert parallel.gnu to parallel

 5. parallel-gnu and moreutils-parallel conflict with each other

 6. ikiwiki-hosting is changed to stop conflicting with parallel

 7. all packages depending (including ikiwiki-hosting) on moreutils or
    gnu (below, $package) are changed to either:

    * use the parallel.$package binary
    * depend on parallel-$package

That way *even* a package like ikwiki-hosting depends on one or the
other package, both binaries can actually be installed at the same time
and "behaving" packages (ie. the ones that use the explicit binary like
parallel.gnu) are not affected.

(In the above, replace "moreutils-parallel" with "parallel-tollef" as
you see fit. See also http://bikeshed.com/.)

Of course, if two packages depend on the conflicting packages, we still
have a problem, but I can't think of a solution for this.

It's my first time dealing with diversions so I hope I got this
right. Any constructive modifications on the above checklists are
welcome here!

A.

-- 
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil,
but because of those who look on and do nothing.
                        - Albert Einstein

Message #90 received at 749355@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Nicolas Schier <nicolas@hjem.rpa.no>

To: Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org>, 718816@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Filippo Giunchedi <filippo@debian.org>, Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>, 749355@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#718816: Bug#749355: parallel: /usr/bin/parallel conflicts with moreutils' parallel

Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 21:24:09 +0200

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

Dear Antoine,

thanks for your good summary and your patience ...

just to get it right, could you please check if I did get it right (the 
moreutils side):

 1. Package 'moreutils' installs /usr/bin/mparallel and depends on 
    package 'moreutils-parallel'; the latter installs a symlink
    /usr/bin/parallel -> mparallel
    'moreutils-parallel' conflicts 'parallel-gnu' and 'parallel <= 
    20141022+ds1-1'

 2. 'ikiwiki-hosting' is changed to use 'mparallel' or to depend on 
    'moreutils-parallel' and use '/usr/bin/parallel'
    'ikiwiki-hosting' is changed to stop conflicting with parallel

 3. Package 'moreutils' recommends (no more depends) on 
    'moreutils-parallel'

> It's my first time dealing with diversions so I hope I got this
> right. Any constructive modifications on the above checklists are
> welcome here!

Right now, I can't see why we should use diversions: if 
moreutils-parallel and parallel-gnu conflict with each other and just 
install a symlink to their implementation each, everything should be 
clear.  Or did I get something wrong?

Thanks again and kind regards,
Nicolas


-- 
gpg key id: 55a0ce7f, epost: nicolas@(hjem.rpa.no|ip6.li)
↳ fpr: 18ed 52db e34f 860e e9fb  c82b 7d97 0932 55a0 ce7f
     -- frykten for herren er opphav til kunnskap --

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

Message #95 received at 749355@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Antoine Beaupré <anarcat@debian.org>

To: Nicolas Schier <nicolas@hjem.rpa.no>, 718816@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Filippo Giunchedi <filippo@debian.org>, Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>, 749355@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#718816: Bug#749355: parallel: /usr/bin/parallel conflicts with moreutils' parallel

Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 14:41:51 -0400

On 2015-07-11 15:24:09, Nicolas Schier wrote:
> Dear Antoine,
>
> thanks for your good summary and your patience ...
>
> just to get it right, could you please check if I did get it right (the 
> moreutils side):
>
>  1. Package 'moreutils' installs /usr/bin/mparallel and depends on 
>     package 'moreutils-parallel'; the latter installs a symlink
>     /usr/bin/parallel -> mparallel
>     'moreutils-parallel' conflicts 'parallel-gnu' and 'parallel <= 
>     20141022+ds1-1'

I suggested /usr/bin/parallel.moreutils - it seems less ambiguous than
mparallel and will allow discovery through commandline completion.

This otherwise seems to make sense.

>  2. 'ikiwiki-hosting' is changed to use 'mparallel' or to depend on 
>     'moreutils-parallel' and use '/usr/bin/parallel'
>     'ikiwiki-hosting' is changed to stop conflicting with parallel

Good.

>  3. Package 'moreutils' recommends (no more depends) on 
>     'moreutils-parallel'

Also makes sense.

>> It's my first time dealing with diversions so I hope I got this
>> right. Any constructive modifications on the above checklists are
>> welcome here!
>
> Right now, I can't see why we should use diversions: if 
> moreutils-parallel and parallel-gnu conflict with each other and just 
> install a symlink to their implementation each, everything should be 
> clear.  Or did I get something wrong?

I am not sure. I had the idea of using diversions instead of symlinks to
handle the /usr/bin/parallel command itself. But now I am not sure it's
the right way to go.

If we use symlinks, shouldn't we use the alternatives system? Then it
would avoid making the two packages conflict with each other too... The
problem with that, of course, is we then do not know which version we
are using and have no way of enforcing that.

So I guess your approach is better. I am not sure how to handle this
otherwise.

A.

-- 
Either you're with us or you're with the terrorist state.

Message #100 received at 749355@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mateusz Kijowski <mateusz.kijowski@gmail.com>

To: 749355@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#718816: Bug#749355: parallel: /usr/bin/parallel conflicts with moreutils' parallel

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 17:28:23 +0100

Soooo, how likely it is that in stretch we will be able to have both
moreutils and parallel installed?

Message #110 received at 749355@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

To: 749355@bugs.debian.org

Subject: moreutils vs parallel

Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 15:40:52 +0000

tl/dr:
  I think we should update parallel to not conflict with moreutils and
  fix a couple of the other bugs (esp #674695 and #816058).

  Unless someone objects I will do (or sponsor) an NMU.


I used dpkg --force-conflicts --install to install both moreutils and
parallel together.  The result is that parallel diverts moreutils's
/usr/bin/parallel to parallel.moreutils, and /usr/bin/parallel is the
GNU one.  This seems fine.

I edited my /var/lib/dpkg/status to remove the Conflicts line and now
my apt is happy.


I agree that alternatives would be a better approach than this
diversion, but the diversion is IMO tolerable.  It's not brilliant,
because it means that:

If the system administrator wants to install GNU parallel as
/usr/bin/parallel.gnu, but leave /usr/bin/parallel as moreutils,
they have to manually locally divert GNU parallel to
/usr/bin/parallel.gnu, and make a symlink.

This is annoying but hardly a crisis.  Most of the time if someone
installs both moreutils and parallel, they want the GNU parallel
(after all, they have asked for it explicitly).  This is not true of
moreutils because it's full of other useful things.


For the same reason, the Conflicts is bad because someone might want
other functionality from moreutils together with GNU parallel (which
is suggested by the documentation for AFL, for example, and is fairly
widely used in scientific computing).

I suggest that for now, we drop the Conflicts from parallel and rely
on the diversion.  If someone submits a set of patches to transition
us to an alternatives-based system then we should apply them.

This does not mean I don't disagree with some of Joey Hess's
criticisms in
  https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=665851#47


The parallel package looks like the maintainer could do with some
help, looking at the package tracker.

I don't know if the maintainer is reading this.  Dear maintainer, if
you are reading this, please don't take my NMU proposal as
aggressive.  I would just like to help fix the program.

If you have different ideas about what should be done please let me
know.

Regards,
Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Message #115 received at 749355@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Rogério Brito <rbrito@gmail.com>

To: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, 749355@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#749355: moreutils vs parallel

Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 04:21:49 -0200

Hi, Ian and others.

On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Ian Jackson
<ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> tl/dr:
>   I think we should update parallel to not conflict with moreutils and
>   fix a couple of the other bugs (esp #674695 and #816058).
>
>   Unless someone objects I will do (or sponsor) an NMU.

I am the maintainer of parallel and after I upgraded youtube-dl, I was
just going to update parallel. OTOH, If you wish to NMU it, I'm fine
with it too.

(...)
> For the same reason, the Conflicts is bad because someone might want
> other functionality from moreutils together with GNU parallel (which
> is suggested by the documentation for AFL, for example, and is fairly
> widely used in scientific computing).

Yes, scientific computing and anything that can take advantage of
distributing loads to more machines (which is the case for some video
reencoding enthusiasts).

> I suggest that for now, we drop the Conflicts from parallel and rely
> on the diversion.

OK, just to reiterate and see if I got what you are trying to
communicate, you think that a sane idea would be to keep the diversion
and simply remove the declaration that the packages conflict?

> If someone submits a set of patches to transition
> us to an alternatives-based system then we should apply them.

I agree and am willing to accept the patches.

> This does not mean I don't disagree with some of Joey Hess's
> criticisms in
>   https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=665851#47
>
>
> The parallel package looks like the maintainer could do with some
> help, looking at the package tracker.

I can take a look and ship something quick'n'dirty, but something
better would probably miss the deadlines posed by the release team,
since I'm slightly short of time this week. The security bug should,
definitely, be fixed, of course.

When upgrading the package, I will try to stick to a "stable" upstream release.

> I don't know if the maintainer is reading this.  Dear maintainer, if
> you are reading this, please don't take my NMU proposal as
> aggressive.  I would just like to help fix the program.

I didn't take that in any way aggressive. In fact, I like it when
people discuss the programs that I maintain (even better is discussion
of programs that I write myself, but that's not the case here :) ).

> If you have different ideas about what should be done please let me
> know.

My preferred idea would still be to split parallel from moreutils as,
say, tollef-parallel, have it, then, use the alternatives solution
with GNU parallel and let life go on. The first few versions of
moreutils can be transitional in the sense that they recommend/suggest
tollef-parallel, so that users interested in that version from
moreutils can keep using it.

In summary, I hope to update the parallel package up to this weekend.
If you want to act faster, please, go ahead and NMU it.

The only thing that I ask from anybody is to put verbose messages on
the git commits.


Thanks,

-- 
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA
http://cynic.cc/blog/ : github.com/rbrito : profiles.google.com/rbrito
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br

Message #120 received at 749355@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

To: Rogério Brito <rbrito@gmail.com>

Cc: 749355@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#749355: moreutils vs parallel

Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 14:23:25 +0000

Rogério Brito writes ("Re: Bug#749355: moreutils vs parallel"):
> I am the maintainer of parallel and after I upgraded youtube-dl, I was
> just going to update parallel. OTOH, If you wish to NMU it, I'm fine
> with it too.

Hi.

> > I suggest that for now, we drop the Conflicts from parallel and rely
> > on the diversion.
> 
> OK, just to reiterate and see if I got what you are trying to
> communicate, you think that a sane idea would be to keep the diversion
> and simply remove the declaration that the packages conflict?

Exactly.

> > The parallel package looks like the maintainer could do with some
> > help, looking at the package tracker.
> 
> I can take a look and ship something quick'n'dirty, but something
> better would probably miss the deadlines posed by the release team,
> since I'm slightly short of time this week. The security bug should,
> definitely, be fixed, of course.

Oh, yes.

> My preferred idea would still be to split parallel from moreutils as,
> say, tollef-parallel, have it, then, use the alternatives solution
> with GNU parallel and let life go on.

I don't think splitting moreutils's parallel out of moreutils.deb is
useful.  To use alternatives, I think what would be needed is:
 1. GNU parallel should change to install /usr/bin/parallel.gnu
    and use alternatives to create /usr/bin/parallel.
 2. moreutils should start to install /usr/bin/parallel.moreutils[1],
    should divert /usr/bin/parallel, and use alternatives to create
    /usr/bin/parallel.  I think this would be compatible with all
    old versions of the GNU parallel.deb.

I haven't tested this.  But I think these changes can be made
separately.

To do this properly would involve preparing at least a new version of
each package, and testing at least all the combinations
  {jessie, old, new} moreutils   x   {jessie, old, new} parallel
(where `old' is what is currently in stretch and `new' is the
proposed update).

[1] We should ask Tollef whether he would prefer moreutils to install
parallel.moreutils, or parallel.tollef, or something else.

> In summary, I hope to update the parallel package up to this weekend.

Great.

> If you want to act faster, please, go ahead and NMU it.

TBH I'm not likely to get round to that.  I will leave it to you
unless you get distracted ...

> The only thing that I ask from anybody is to put verbose messages on
> the git commits.

Heh.  (PS pls use dgit push)

Regards,
Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Message #125 received at 749355@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>

To: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

Cc: 749355@bugs.debian.org, 749355-submitter@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#749355: moreutils vs parallel

Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 16:16:08 -0200

Hi, All.

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Ian Jackson
<ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Rogério Brito writes ("Re: Bug#749355: moreutils vs parallel"):
>> I can take a look and ship something quick'n'dirty, but something
>> better would probably miss the deadlines posed by the release team,
>> since I'm slightly short of time this week. The security bug should,
>> definitely, be fixed, of course.
>
> Oh, yes.

Great, but it seems that upstream changed a good deal more of the
script since the last package was uploaded and there are things that
smell like they should be installed under /usr/lib or /usr/share.

I think that we will have to have a quick chat with Ole (upstream of
GNU parallel) to decide what to do regarding those
usr/bin/env_parallel.* scripts.

In the mean time, I have uploaded a draft of my package to
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/parallel.git

Comments are more than welcome so that we can fix many bugs with this
next upload.

> I haven't tested this.  But I think these changes can be made
> separately.

They will have to be tested, indeed.

>> The only thing that I ask from anybody is to put verbose messages on
>> the git commits.
>
> Heh.  (PS pls use dgit push)

I'm not yet familiar with dgit. Will leave to learn about it after we
fix parallel. :)


Thanks,

-- 
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA
http://cynic.cc/blog/ : github.com/rbrito : profiles.google.com/rbrito
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br

Message #133 received at 749355-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ondřej Surý <ondrej@debian.org>

To: 749355-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#749355: fixed in parallel 20161222-1

Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 13:48:41 +0000

Source: parallel
Source-Version: 20161222-1

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

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 749355@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Ondřej Surý <ondrej@debian.org> (supplier of updated parallel 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@ftp-master.debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 14:24:10 +0100
Source: parallel
Binary: parallel
Architecture: source all
Version: 20161222-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br>
Changed-By: Ondřej Surý <ondrej@debian.org>
Description:
 parallel   - build and execute command lines from standard input in parallel
Closes: 749355 787954 813639 815952
Changes:
 parallel (20161222-1) unstable; urgency=medium
 .
   [ Rogério Brito ]
   * New upstream version 20161122.
     + Fixes CVE-2015-4155 and CVE-2015-4156. (Closes: #787954)
   * debian/gbp.conf:
     + Avoid warning by renaming section from git-import-orig to import-orig.
     + Avoid warning by renaming section from git-dch to dch.
   * debian/control:
     + Depend on procps. (Closes: #815952)
     + Remove conflicts with moreutils. Thanks to Ian Jackson for the
       suggestion and many others for the discussions.  (Closes: #749355)
     + Substitute dependency on perl-modules with simple perl.
     + Fix Vcs-* URLs to point to new, cgit HTTPS locations.
 .
   [ Ondřej Surý ]
   * Imported Upstream version 20161222 (Closes: #813639)
Checksums-Sha1:
 b785177fd310a67e78267ebfece57135a0ba3096 2071 parallel_20161222-1.dsc
 00b110f1759fa2fcc54ad62e84b15fe013fffaca 1408567 parallel_20161222.orig.tar.bz2
 419a4705a9d87e8ff695abb912ce72ab9d8f895b 18856 parallel_20161222-1.debian.tar.xz
 cb73c4b94614e4046f605613d6618d2b5d08d7d0 306798 parallel_20161222-1_all.deb
 efdbd326635fcc57bdfc5f1ba03e6b5eeb80be61 4928 parallel_20161222-1_amd64.buildinfo
Checksums-Sha256:
 9d6f46e2b55026cdf56a6acf2da5e5a212d6f9bf94d777cfe322be39a3f1a8d2 2071 parallel_20161222-1.dsc
 2714be9b6957ce6ddb268e8aa97f463d8eac97e55612cc055ef030afd9c80fb2 1408567 parallel_20161222.orig.tar.bz2
 a1f45066d41f6e2c2c54dc270ab20361b0ec3e60075c55e1f086c09840ad45ff 18856 parallel_20161222-1.debian.tar.xz
 3fc62e5ceb22bb76951fea47ee50c9a3fb86a89654a9b79a75bb1a28719d4513 306798 parallel_20161222-1_all.deb
 df8ff6038407afd05265d2dce66febf606ec1728a72c9b6b37a589b29cd34759 4928 parallel_20161222-1_amd64.buildinfo
Files:
 69322263a3b83f757a1320a796024785 2071 utils extra parallel_20161222-1.dsc
 1e5752dfd407df6e27ca1c65cf2642f8 1408567 utils extra parallel_20161222.orig.tar.bz2
 c834fe61a6aaf28b1a8ac1e6b36f7de6 18856 utils extra parallel_20161222-1.debian.tar.xz
 d6bd3a30c2970c095e1a4dbeec878ca4 306798 utils extra parallel_20161222-1_all.deb
 b1f820edb48409a7553df36b33c24664 4928 utils extra parallel_20161222-1_amd64.buildinfo

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=9FzA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #138 received at 749355@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "USPS Home Delivery" <kelly.gates@globalpub.net>

To: 749355@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Notification status of your delivery (USPS 08556841)

Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 17:25:25 +0000

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

Dear Customer,



USPS courier was unable to contact you for your parcel delivery.



Please check delivery label attached!



With sincere thanks,

Kelly Gates,

USPS Parcels Delivery Clerk.

[Delivery-Receipt-08556841.zip (application/zip, attachment)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.