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

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.rc > #282204 > unrolled thread

Bug#965151: afdko-bin: /usr/bin/tx is already shipped by transifex-client

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

Contents

  Bug#965151: afdko-bin: /usr/bin/tx is already shipped by transifex-client Andreas Beckmann <anbe@debian.org> - 2020-07-16 23:30 +0200
    Bug#965151: afdko-bin: /usr/bin/tx is already shipped by transifex-client Boyuan Yang <byang@debian.org> - 2020-07-18 21:40 +0200
      Bug#965151: afdko-bin: /usr/bin/tx is already shipped by transifex-client Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2020-07-19 21:00 +0200
    Bug#965151: /usr/bin/tx: transifex-client and afdko shipping binaries under the same name Yao Wei <mwei@debian.org> - 2020-07-20 03:50 +0200
      Bug#965151: /usr/bin/tx: transifex-client and afdko shipping binaries under the same name Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2020-07-20 05:10 +0200
        Bug#965151: /usr/bin/tx: transifex-client and afdko shipping binaries under the same name Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> - 2020-07-20 20:30 +0200
        Bug#965151: /usr/bin/tx: transifex-client and afdko shipping binaries under the same name Yao Wei <mwei@debian.org> - 2020-07-26 06:10 +0200
      Bug#965151: /usr/bin/tx: transifex-client and afdko shipping binaries under the same name Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> - 2020-07-20 20:50 +0200
    Bug#965151: marked as done (afdko-bin: /usr/bin/tx is already  shipped by transifex-client) "Debian Bug Tracking System" <owner@bugs.debian.org> - 2020-07-26 06:10 +0200
    Bug#965151: /usr/bin/tx: transifex-client and afdko shipping binaries under the same name Yao Wei <mwei@debian.org> - 2020-07-28 03:30 +0200

#282204 — Bug#965151: afdko-bin: /usr/bin/tx is already shipped by transifex-client

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

Package: afdko-bin
Version: 3.4.0+dfsg1-2
Severity: serious
User: treinen@debian.org
Usertags: edos-file-overwrite
Control: affects -1 + src:transifex-client

Hi,

automatic installation tests of packages that share a file and at the
same time do not conflict by their package dependency relationships has
detected the following problem:

  Preparing to unpack .../afdko-bin_3.4.0+dfsg1-2_amd64.deb ...
  Unpacking afdko-bin (3.4.0+dfsg1-2) ...
  dpkg: error processing archive /var/cache/apt/archives/afdko-bin_3.4.0+dfsg1-2_amd64.deb (--unpack):
   trying to overwrite '/usr/bin/tx', which is also in package transifex-client 0.13.9-1
  Errors were encountered while processing:
   /var/cache/apt/archives/afdko-bin_3.4.0+dfsg1-2_amd64.deb

This is a serious bug as it makes installation fail, and violates
sections 7.6.1 and 10.1 of the policy. An optimal solution would
consist in only one of the packages installing that file, and renaming
or removing the file in the other package. Depending on the
circumstances you might also consider Replace relations or file
diversions. If the conflicting situation cannot be resolved then, as a
last resort, the two packages have to declare a mutual
Conflict. Please take into account that Replaces, Conflicts and
diversions should only be used when packages provide different
implementations for the same functionality.

Here is a list of files that are known to be shared by both packages
(according to the Contents file for sid/amd64, which may be
slightly out of sync):

  usr/bin/tx


Cheers,

Andreas

PS: for more information about the detection of file overwrite errors
of this kind see https://qa.debian.org/dose/file-overwrites.html

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#282315

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

X-Debbugs-CC: debian-fonts@lists.debian.org mwei@debian.org

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 23:19:31 +0200 Andreas Beckmann <anbe@debian.org>
wrote:
> Package: afdko-bin
> Version: 3.4.0+dfsg1-2
> Severity: serious
> 
>   Preparing to unpack .../afdko-bin_3.4.0+dfsg1-2_amd64.deb ...
>   Unpacking afdko-bin (3.4.0+dfsg1-2) ...
>   dpkg: error processing archive /var/cache/apt/archives/afdko-
bin_3.4.0+dfsg1-2_amd64.deb (--unpack):
>    trying to overwrite '/usr/bin/tx', which is also in package
transifex-client 0.13.9-1
>   Errors were encountered while processing:
>    /var/cache/apt/archives/afdko-bin_3.4.0+dfsg1-2_amd64.deb
> 
> If the conflicting situation cannot be resolved then, as
> last resort, the two packages have to declare a mutual
> Conflict.

AFAICT a mutual conflict could be the only reasonable solution. @mwei
what do you think?

-- 
Thanks,
Boyuan Yang

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

#282378

On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 03:36:48PM -0400, Boyuan Yang wrote:
> X-Debbugs-CC: debian-fonts@lists.debian.org mwei@debian.org
> 
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 23:19:31 +0200 Andreas Beckmann <anbe@debian.org>
> wrote:
> > Package: afdko-bin
> > Version: 3.4.0+dfsg1-2
> > Severity: serious
> > 
> >   Preparing to unpack .../afdko-bin_3.4.0+dfsg1-2_amd64.deb ...
> >   Unpacking afdko-bin (3.4.0+dfsg1-2) ...
> >   dpkg: error processing archive /var/cache/apt/archives/afdko-
> bin_3.4.0+dfsg1-2_amd64.deb (--unpack):
> >    trying to overwrite '/usr/bin/tx', which is also in package
> transifex-client 0.13.9-1
> >   Errors were encountered while processing:
> >    /var/cache/apt/archives/afdko-bin_3.4.0+dfsg1-2_amd64.deb
> > 
> > If the conflicting situation cannot be resolved then, as
> > last resort, the two packages have to declare a mutual
> > Conflict.
> 
> AFAICT a mutual conflict could be the only reasonable solution. @mwei
> what do you think?

The policy is very clear: 

#10.1.

# Two different packages must not install programs with different
# functionality but with the same filenames. (The case of two programs
# having the same functionality but different implementations is handled
# via “alternatives” or the “Conflicts” mechanism. See Maintainer
# Scripts and Conflicting binary packages - Conflicts respectively.) If
# this case happens, one of the programs must be renamed. The
# maintainers should report this to the "debian-devel" mailing list and
# try to find a consensus about which program will have to be renamed.
# If a consensus cannot be reached, *both* programs must be renamed.

Thus, a mutual conflict is not allowed.  Two random packages without a
relation are not expected to conflict: there's no reason someone who hacks
on some software that uses Transifex to manage their translation wouldn't
also want to deal with fonts -- we're in the "breaks unrelated software"
land.

This issue pops up on debian-devel quite often, and the consensus is that
exceptions shouldn't be given.  Major cases: "node": axnode vs node.js,
"git" vs gnuit.


Meow!
-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ It's time to migrate your Imaginary Protocol from version 4i to 6i.
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀

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

#282388 — Bug#965151: /usr/bin/tx: transifex-client and afdko shipping binaries under the same name

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

Hi,

There's a serious bug when I am uploading afdko package, that one of the
binaries in this package "tx" has name conflicting with
transifex-client.

  https://bugs.debian.org/965151

I am currently considering doing it by moving all binaries of afdko from
/usr/bin to /usr/bin/afdko, and then creating another package
afdko-legacy, that, similar to node-legacy before node changed the name
to ax25-node, symlinks all binaries from /usr/bin/afdko back to
/usr/bin.  This will decrease the mess of one package having multiple
binaries, and ensure the compatibility of font building scripts that
invokes afdko tx.  Does it require CTTE agreement since afdko-legacy is
also in conflict with tx?

Another python module package that's in my ITP also invokes afdko's tx:

  https://bugs.debian.org/962383

How other packages that depends on nodejs did when its name was nodejs?
And how did they use nodejs on package building and/or run-time?

Ref on nodejs vs node CTTE:

  https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/07/msg00002.html

Thanks,
Yao Wei

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

#282389 — Bug#965151: /usr/bin/tx: transifex-client and afdko shipping binaries under the same name

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 1:40 AM Yao Wei wrote:

> There's a serious bug when I am uploading afdko package, that one of the
> binaries in this package "tx" has name conflicting with
> transifex-client.

As transifex-client is client for the proprietary Transifex service,
personally I would just add a conflict.

Also talk to upstream about choosing a more appropriate name for the
tx program, that is way too short even if it weren't conflicting with
another package. Probably making all the commands in the afdko package
subcommands of a new afdko command would be the way to go (similar to
how git uses subcommands).

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

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

#282433 — Bug#965151: /usr/bin/tx: transifex-client and afdko shipping binaries under the same name

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 03:05:26AM +0000, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 1:40 AM Yao Wei wrote:
> 
> > There's a serious bug when I am uploading afdko package, that one of the
> > binaries in this package "tx" has name conflicting with
> > transifex-client.
> 
> As transifex-client is client for the proprietary Transifex service,
> personally I would just add a conflict.

Policy says this is not an option, and I agree with policy.

If we start allowing conflicts between completely unrelated packages
it might not end well in the long run.

Imagine the GNU Interactive Tools would still provide /usr/bin/git
with such a Conflicts.

> Also talk to upstream about choosing a more appropriate name for the
> tx program, that is way too short even if it weren't conflicting with
> another package.
>...

I would agree with that, my first thought was whether there is also
an rx program...

> bye,
> pabs

cu
Adrian

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

#282930 — Bug#965151: /usr/bin/tx: transifex-client and afdko shipping binaries under the same name

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

Hi,

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 03:05:26AM +0000, Paul Wise wrote:
> Probably making all the commands in the afdko package subcommands of a
> new afdko command would be the way to go (similar to how git uses
> subcommands).

Worked this around in 3.5.0+dfsg1-1 upload, by supplying a wrapper
script `afdko`, and moving all the binaries into /usr/libexec/afdko/ .

If a font needs afdko to build one need to put /usr/libexec/afdko/ into
their PATH.

Yao Wei

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

#282434 — Bug#965151: /usr/bin/tx: transifex-client and afdko shipping binaries under the same name

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 09:35:35AM +0800, Yao Wei wrote:
>...
> I am currently considering doing it by moving all binaries of afdko from
> /usr/bin to /usr/bin/afdko, and then creating another package
> afdko-legacy, that, similar to node-legacy before node changed the name
> to ax25-node, symlinks all binaries from /usr/bin/afdko back to
> /usr/bin.

This was a one-time decision, it is not a general procedure.

> This will decrease the mess of one package having multiple
> binaries, and ensure the compatibility of font building scripts that
> invokes afdko tx.  Does it require CTTE agreement since afdko-legacy is
> also in conflict with tx?
>...

Yes.

Cases like node or git or chromium where a very popular new program 
(unintentionally) steals the name of a fringe program are rare.

This looks like the common case where two fringe packages both use
a far too generic name for a program, and the older package might
have users using it with this name in stable releases.

> Thanks,
> Yao Wei

cu
Adrian

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

#282931 — Bug#965151: marked as done (afdko-bin: /usr/bin/tx is already shipped by transifex-client)

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

Your message dated Sun, 26 Jul 2020 04:03:29 +0000
with message-id <E1jzXsn-000FUa-NL@fasolo.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#965151: fixed in afdko 3.5.0+dfsg1-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #965151,
regarding afdko-bin: /usr/bin/tx is already shipped by transifex-client
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
965151: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=965151
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems

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

#283124 — Bug#965151: /usr/bin/tx: transifex-client and afdko shipping binaries under the same name

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

(CC to @paravoid as original reporter of the same issue)

On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 05:04:42AM +0000, Paul Wise wrote:
> This sort of thing needs to happen upstream first.

I reported it, without noticing that they had the same report third
time, and it was not a charm, still marked as wontfix for compatibility
of existing scripts.

https://github.com/adobe-type-tools/afdko/issues/1196

https://github.com/adobe-type-tools/afdko/issues/1162

https://github.com/adobe-type-tools/afdko/issues/672

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web