Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #977366 > unrolled thread

Bug#941475: debian-policy: please document the /run/reboot-required thingy in the upgrade changelog

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist

Contents

  Bug#941475: debian-policy: please document the /run/reboot-required thingy in the upgrade changelog Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2019-10-01 11:00 +0200
    Bug#941475: debian-policy: please document the /run/reboot-required thingy in the upgrade changelog Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2019-10-01 16:30 +0200
      Bug#941475: debian-policy: please document the /run/reboot-required thingy in the upgrade changelog Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2019-10-01 16:40 +0200
        Bug#941475: debian-policy: please document the /run/reboot-required thingy in the upgrade changelog Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2019-10-02 17:20 +0200
          Bug#941475: debian-policy: please document the /run/reboot-required thingy in the upgrade changelog Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2019-10-03 10:50 +0200
            Bug#941475: debian-policy: please document the /run/reboot-required thingy in the upgrade changelog Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2019-10-03 11:10 +0200
            Bug#941475: debian-policy: please document the /run/reboot-required thingy in the upgrade changelog Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2019-10-03 16:40 +0200
        Bug#941475: debian-policy: please document the /run/reboot-required thingy in the upgrade changelog Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org> - 2019-10-03 11:30 +0200
          Bug#941475: debian-policy: please document the /run/reboot-required thingy in the upgrade changelog Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2019-10-03 12:10 +0200

#977366 — Bug#941475: debian-policy: please document the /run/reboot-required thingy in the upgrade changelog

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.4.1.0

SSIA.

(incidentally, due to this the change also didn't make it to d-d-a…)

-- 
regards,
                        Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540      .''`.
More about me:  https://mapreri.org                             : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri                  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#977401

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

control: tag -1 +moreinfo

Hello,

On Tue 01 Oct 2019 at 10:50AM +02, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:

> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.4.1.0
>
> SSIA.
>
> (incidentally, due to this the change also didn't make it to d-d-a…)

Hmm, this was deliberate because the additional documentation doesn't
require anyone to make changes to their packages.

Could you explain why you want it in the upgrading checklist?

-- 
Sean Whitton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#977403

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 07:14:08AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hmm, this was deliberate because the additional documentation doesn't
> require anyone to make changes to their packages.
> 
> Could you explain why you want it in the upgrading checklist?

because it's a new thing, and it helps those people that don't follow
closely enough to know that there is a new thing.  So if at some point
any given package start to need some "reboot required" information,
everybody who read once the checklist know that there already is a
policy/standard for that.

Like you document in the checklist addition to the virtual packages:
also those don't require any change to existing packages, it's just
there for everybody to know that starting from that version they can
make use of that new thing.

-- 
regards,
                        Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540      .''`.
More about me:  https://mapreri.org                             : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri                  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#977577

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

control: tag -1 +moreinfo

Hello,

On Tue 01 Oct 2019 at 04:21PM +02, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 07:14:08AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> Hmm, this was deliberate because the additional documentation doesn't
>> require anyone to make changes to their packages.
>>
>> Could you explain why you want it in the upgrading checklist?
>
> because it's a new thing, and it helps those people that don't follow
> closely enough to know that there is a new thing.  So if at some point
> any given package start to need some "reboot required" information,
> everybody who read once the checklist know that there already is a
> policy/standard for that.

Well, it's new to the Policy Manual, but it's certainly not new in the
archive.

> Like you document in the checklist addition to the virtual packages:
> also those don't require any change to existing packages, it's just
> there for everybody to know that starting from that version they can
> make use of that new thing.

Okay.

From your point of view, if we started to add a summary of d/changelog
entries which are /not/ accounted for by the upgrading checklist to the
d-d-a e-mail, would that be sufficient?  Or do you think this stuff has
to be in the upgrading checklist?

-- 
Sean Whitton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#977668

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 08:03:15AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > Like you document in the checklist addition to the virtual packages:
> > also those don't require any change to existing packages, it's just
> > there for everybody to know that starting from that version they can
> > make use of that new thing.
> 
> From your point of view, if we started to add a summary of d/changelog
> entries which are /not/ accounted for by the upgrading checklist to the
> d-d-a e-mail, would that be sufficient?  Or do you think this stuff has
> to be in the upgrading checklist?

I only read the title of the d-d-a mail, but I read the upgrade
checklist many times over the course of the years.  Hope that answers
your question :)

I think this would be the case where a 3rd party thought would be
welcome :)

-- 
regards,
                        Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540      .''`.
More about me:  https://mapreri.org                             : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri                  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#977672

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:40:09AM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> I only read the title of the d-d-a mail, but I read the upgrade
> checklist many times over the course of the years.  

almost the same here, just that I usually read the mail too.


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
       PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#977725

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello,

On Thu 03 Oct 2019 at 10:40AM +02, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 08:03:15AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> > Like you document in the checklist addition to the virtual packages:
>> > also those don't require any change to existing packages, it's just
>> > there for everybody to know that starting from that version they can
>> > make use of that new thing.

Just to note that the case of virtual packages is a bit different, since
you sometimes have to wait for Policy to be able to use it, but for most
everything else, you can use it before Policy is updated.

>>  From your point of view, if we started to add a summary of
>> d/changelog entries which are /not/ accounted for by the upgrading
>> checklist to the d-d-a e-mail, would that be sufficient?  Or do you
>> think this stuff has to be in the upgrading checklist?
>
> I only read the title of the d-d-a mail, but I read the upgrade
> checklist many times over the course of the years.  Hope that answers
> your question :)
>
> I think this would be the case where a 3rd party thought would be
> welcome :)

Yes, certainly, I'm happy to add it, and have now done so.

-- 
Sean Whitton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#977674

On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 04:21:11PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 07:14:08AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > Hmm, this was deliberate because the additional documentation doesn't
> > require anyone to make changes to their packages.
> > 
> > Could you explain why you want it in the upgrading checklist?
> 
> because it's a new thing, and it helps those people that don't follow
> closely enough to know that there is a new thing.  So if at some point
> any given package start to need some "reboot required" information,
> everybody who read once the checklist know that there already is a
> policy/standard for that.

This is confusing.
On one hand, packages are not supposed to require reboot,
and /run/reboot-required is not honoured.
On the other hand some packages require "reboot required" information
from other ?

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

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#977680

Bill Allombert writes:
> This is confusing.
> On one hand, packages are not supposed to require reboot,
> and /run/reboot-required is not honoured.

You need to reboot for many reasons:

 - new kernel
 - new kernel drivers (DKMS)
 - new dbus
 - new other daemon that cannot be restarted (because it provides
   essential services)

Not to mention that many applications don't support to continue running
the old version while a new version was installed and will randomly
misbehave and/or crash and/or complain.  (Though for that the proper
solution are offline upgrades as implemented by other operating
systems.)

> On the other hand some packages require "reboot required" information
> from other ?

It's an information for users that packages might not work properly
until reboot.  There is no realistic way to avoid this in Debian.

Ansgar

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.dist

csiph-web