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

Groups > linux.debian.devel > #101209 > unrolled thread

inconsistent mailgraph settings

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.devel

Contents

  inconsistent mailgraph settings Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2021-08-20 17:00 +0200
    Re: inconsistent mailgraph settings Tomas Pospisek <tpo2@sourcepole.ch> - 2021-08-21 10:40 +0200
      Re: inconsistent mailgraph settings Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2021-08-21 12:10 +0200
        BTS not archiving Bcc: mails? [was: Re: inconsistent mailgraph  settings] Tomas Pospisek <tpo2@sourcepole.ch> - 2021-08-22 20:30 +0200
          Re: BTS not archiving Bcc: mails? [was: Re: inconsistent mailgraph  settings] Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2021-08-22 20:40 +0200
            Re: BTS not archiving Bcc: mails? [was: Re: inconsistent mailgraph  settings] Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2021-08-23 02:30 +0200
              Re: BTS not archiving Bcc: mails? [was: Re: inconsistent mailgraph  settings] Tomas Pospisek <tpo2@sourcepole.ch> - 2021-08-23 07:20 +0200
                Re: BTS not archiving Bcc: mails? [was: Re: inconsistent mailgraph settings] Holger Wansing <hwansing@mailbox.org> - 2021-08-23 08:00 +0200
                  Re: BTS not archiving Bcc: mails? [was: Re: inconsistent mailgraph  settings]G Tim Woodall <debiandevel@woodall.me.uk> - 2021-08-23 08:50 +0200
                    Re: BTS not archiving Bcc: mails? [was: Re: inconsistent mailgraph  settings]G Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2021-08-25 12:50 +0200
                      Re: BTS not archiving Bcc: mails? [was: Re: inconsistent mailgraph  settings] Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2021-08-27 02:10 +0200
              Re: BTS not archiving Bcc: mails? [was: Re: inconsistent mailgraph  settings] Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2021-08-23 09:30 +0200
      Re: inconsistent mailgraph settings Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2021-08-23 02:40 +0200
        Re: inconsistent mailgraph settings Tomas Pospisek <tpo2@sourcepole.ch> - 2021-08-23 07:30 +0200
          Re: inconsistent mailgraph settings Tomas Pospisek <tpo2@sourcepole.ch> - 2021-08-23 07:40 +0200

#101209 — inconsistent mailgraph settings

My bug report https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=989734
has been closed again, with no explanations.

While mailgraph was started on boot in the past, this stopped
working with the upgrade to Debian 10, and I had to enable it
again. So issues with the upgrade to Debian 11, but the mailgraph
package has not changed. And who knows what will happend with
the next upgrade...

I can see in the debian/default.conf file:

# Should Mailgraph start on boot (true|false) (default: true)
BOOT_START="true"

So I don't understand what is the intent for the default settings.
To run it on boot or not???

Note that I was already using systemd in Debian 9, so that it is
not normal that mailgraph stopped working after the upgrade to
Debian 10.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#101241

Hi Vincent,

On 20.08.21 16:50, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> My bug report https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=989734
> has been closed again, with no explanations.

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=989734;msg=12 claims 
that the bug was closed via 
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=989734;msg=10 . 
However I can't see why the latter mentioned message would close the 
bugreport. Can anybody shed some light on this?

Either way: try to stay calm, try keeping a *cooperative* conversation 
with the maintainer. Your argument being right or not right won't 
guarantee you that you'll have your way. You need to work with the 
maintainer to get your issue resolved in a way that's acceptable for 
both of you. So try not to escalate things, try to keep your urges in check.

I can't see the maintainer refusing to work with you: it just seems that 
it is unclear why mailgraph wouldn't start automatically after the 
upgrade. Remember that the maintainer doesn't own anything to you. He 
doesn't *have* to fix anything.

In particular it *seems* to work for him and he doesn't have access to 
your system where things apparently went wrong so it could be really 
hard for him to know. So what you can do is to try to debug *yourself* 
why the upgrade went wrong and come forth with some analysis that shows 
to root cause of the breakage. And then you can also propose a fix. I am 
sure that would make it a lot easier for the maintainer to do "the right 
thing".

> While mailgraph was started on boot in the past, this stopped
> working with the upgrade to Debian 10, and I had to enable it
> again. So issues with the upgrade to Debian 11, but the mailgraph
> package has not changed. And who knows what will happend with
> the next upgrade...
> 
> I can see in the debian/default.conf file:
> 
> # Should Mailgraph start on boot (true|false) (default: true)
> BOOT_START="true"
> 
> So I don't understand what is the intent for the default settings.
> To run it on boot or not???

Evidently the package is offering a choice on whether to start or not to 
start mailgraph on boot. By virtue of that option existing it seems that 
not everybody wants mailgraph to be started on boot.

> Note that I was already using systemd in Debian 9, so that it is
> not normal that mailgraph stopped working after the upgrade to
> Debian 10.

Don't be all up in arms about the problem. Try to find out why it's 
broken and try to propose a fix and to work with the maintainer.

Note that not only you might get frustrated but the maintainer might too 
in which case he might decide to give up on the package and then you'll 
be left with less than when you started. So try to keep the conversation 
friendly, supportive and cooperative.

All the best!
*t

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

#101243

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

On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 10:36:04AM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
> 
> On 20.08.21 16:50, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > My bug report https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=989734
> > has been closed again, with no explanations.
> 
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=989734;msg=12 claims that
> the bug was closed via
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=989734;msg=10 . However I
> can't see why the latter mentioned message would close the bugreport. Can
> anybody shed some light on this?

Likely Jörg Frings-Fürst BCCed the -close@ address.  There are some
people who do that…

-- 
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]

#101286 — BTS not archiving Bcc: mails? [was: Re: inconsistent mailgraph settings]

Hi Mattia,

On 21.08.21 12:06, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 10:36:04AM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>> Hi Vincent,
>>
>> On 20.08.21 16:50, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>>> My bug report https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=989734
>>> has been closed again, with no explanations.
>>
>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=989734;msg=12 claims that
>> the bug was closed via
>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=989734;msg=10 . However I
>> can't see why the latter mentioned message would close the bugreport. Can
>> anybody shed some light on this?
> 
> Likely Jörg Frings-Fürst BCCed the -close@ address.  There are some
> people who do that…

Wouldn't the Bcc'ed email that arrived to the BTS be visible in the 
bug's log/archive (on the bug's page (https://bugs.debian.org/989734))? 
Or will BTS filter out Bcc emails?

Why would the BTS behave in such a way or even allow that? ?8-o ?

Stumped,
*t

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

#101287 — Re: BTS not archiving Bcc: mails? [was: Re: inconsistent mailgraph settings]

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

On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 08:25:41PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> Wouldn't the Bcc'ed email that arrived to the BTS be visible in the bug's
> log/archive (on the bug's page (https://bugs.debian.org/989734))?
It's visible: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=989734;msg=27

-- 
WBR, wRAR

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

#101298 — Re: BTS not archiving Bcc: mails? [was: Re: inconsistent mailgraph settings]

On 2021-08-22 23:32:15 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 08:25:41PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> > Wouldn't the Bcc'ed email that arrived to the BTS be visible in the bug's
> > log/archive (on the bug's page (https://bugs.debian.org/989734))?
> It's visible: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=989734;msg=27

Where? I don't see any "close" or "done".

Note that the "Done:" in the metadata at the top just reflects the
*current* status of the bug; it is currently also present at

  https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=989734;msg=5

where the bug was obviously open.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

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

#101304 — Re: BTS not archiving Bcc: mails? [was: Re: inconsistent mailgraph settings]

On 23.08.21 02:21, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2021-08-22 23:32:15 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 08:25:41PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>>> Wouldn't the Bcc'ed email that arrived to the BTS be visible in the bug's
>>> log/archive (on the bug's page (https://bugs.debian.org/989734))?
>> It's visible: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=989734;msg=27
> 
> Where? I don't see any "close" or "done".
> 
> Note that the "Done:" in the metadata at the top just reflects the
> *current* status of the bug; it is currently also present at
> 
>    https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=989734;msg=5
> 
> where the bug was obviously open.

The thing is, if you close a bug report via `Bcc: 
999999999999-close@bugs.debian.org` then the mail that arrives at the 
BTS does *not* have the 999999999999-close@bugs.debian.org address in 
the email header but only in the mail envelope - that is, when 
connecting the sending MTA will tell the BTS MTA "RCPT TO: 
999999999999-close@bugs.debian.org"
and that's it. This will close the bug, but the address 
999999999999-close@bugs.debian.org will not be visible in the email 
that's archived...

Not sure why people are using `Bcc: 999999999999-close@bugs.debian.org` 
in the first place. To hide that 999999999999-close@bugs.debian.org 
address from spammers? But then all the other addresses are visible...?
:-/
*t

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

#101307 — Re: BTS not archiving Bcc: mails? [was: Re: inconsistent mailgraph settings]

Am 23. August 2021 07:19:26 MESZ schrieb Tomas Pospisek <tpo2@sourcepole.ch>:
>
>The thing is, if you close a bug report via `Bcc: 
>999999999999-close@bugs.debian.org` then the mail that arrives at the 
>BTS does *not* have the 999999999999-close@bugs.debian.org address in 
>the email header but only in the mail envelope - that is, when 
>connecting the sending MTA will tell the BTS MTA "RCPT TO: 
>999999999999-close@bugs.debian.org"
>and that's it. This will close the bug, but the address 
>999999999999-close@bugs.debian.org will not be visible in the email 
>that's archived...

Funny, just some minutes before your mail I have filed 
bug #992755 as a place to test and document this
behaviour.

It's indeed as you stated.

Thus, I will reopen and rename that bug accordingly.


Holger


-- 
Sent from /e/ OS on Fairphone3

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

#101308 — Re: BTS not archiving Bcc: mails? [was: Re: inconsistent mailgraph settings]G

On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Holger Wansing wrote:

>
>
> Am 23. August 2021 07:19:26 MESZ schrieb Tomas Pospisek <tpo2@sourcepole.ch>:
>>
>> The thing is, if you close a bug report via `Bcc:
>> 999999999999-close@bugs.debian.org` then the mail that arrives at the
>> BTS does *not* have the 999999999999-close@bugs.debian.org address in
>> the email header but only in the mail envelope - that is, when
>> connecting the sending MTA will tell the BTS MTA "RCPT TO:
>> 999999999999-close@bugs.debian.org"
>> and that's it. This will close the bug, but the address
>> 999999999999-close@bugs.debian.org will not be visible in the email
>> that's archived...
>
> Funny, just some minutes before your mail I have filed
> bug #992755 as a place to test and document this
> behaviour.
>
> It's indeed as you stated.
>
> Thus, I will reopen and rename that bug accordingly.
>

When I toggle "show useless messages" I think I do see the closure. And
I see the one for 989734 too.


https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=992755;msg=14
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=989734;msg=14

(Pasted below in case those links don't work as I expect)

Tim.


MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509)
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
From: "Debian Bug Tracking System" <owner@bugs.debian.org>
To: Holger Wansing <hwansing@mailbox.org>
Subject: Bug#992755 closed by Holger Wansing <hwansing@mailbox.org> (Re:
  Bug#992755: [BTS] Bcc'ed close mails not archived in bug log ?))
Message-ID:
<handler.992755.D992755.162969662730356.notifdone@bugs.debian.org>
References: <9F3CF53F-8C57-4CE5-B459-D7605C1C0656@mailbox.org>
  <D8FFE44D-F92A-434A-91B0-03DE77464945@mailbox.org>
X-Debian-PR-Message: they-closed 992755
X-Debian-PR-Package: bugs.debian.org
Reply-To: 992755@bugs.debian.org
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 05:33:06 +0000
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_1629696786-30835-1"

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

This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
which was filed against the bugs.debian.org package:

#992755: [BTS] Bcc'ed close mails not archived in bug log ?

It has been closed by Holger Wansing <hwansing@mailbox.org>.

Their explanation is attached below along with your original report.
If this explanation is unsatisfactory and you have not received a
better one in a separate message then please contact Holger Wansing
<hwansing@mailbox.org> by
replying to this email.


-- 
992755: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=992755
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

     From: Holger Wansing <hwansing@mailbox.org>
     To: 992755@bugs.debian.org
     Subject: Re: Bug#992755: [BTS] Bcc'ed close mails not archived in
bug log ?)
     Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 07:30:09 +0200

     This mail is also sent to
     992755-close@bugs.debian.org
     via Bcc !

     Let's see what happens...


================



MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509)
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
From: "Debian Bug Tracking System" <owner@bugs.debian.org>
To: Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net>
Subject: Bug#989734 closed by J??rg Frings-F??rst
  <debian@jff.email> (reply to debian@jff.email) (Re: mailgraph does not
  start on boot)
Message-ID:
<handler.989734.D989734.162946096613955.notifdone@bugs.debian.org>
References: <75bfd56d668f858a0df8c89c963d31e8036414c2.camel@jff.email>
  <20210611143438.GA12721@joooj.vinc17.net>
X-Debian-PR-Message: they-closed 989734
X-Debian-PR-Package: mailgraph
X-Debian-PR-Source: mailgraph
Reply-To: 989734@bugs.debian.org
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2021 12:06:07 +0000
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_1629461167-15851-1"

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

This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
which was filed against the mailgraph package:

#989734: mailgraph does not start on boot

It has been closed by J??rg Frings-F??rst <debian@jff.email> (reply to
debian@jff.email).

Their explanation is attached below along with your original report.
If this explanation is unsatisfactory and you have not received a
better one in a separate message then please contact J??rg Frings-F??rst
<debian@jff.email> (reply to debian@jff.email) by
replying to this email.

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

#101346 — Re: BTS not archiving Bcc: mails? [was: Re: inconsistent mailgraph settings]G

On 2021-08-23 07:43:07 +0100, Tim Woodall wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Holger Wansing wrote:
> > Am 23. August 2021 07:19:26 MESZ schrieb Tomas Pospisek <tpo2@sourcepole.ch>:
> > > 
> > > The thing is, if you close a bug report via `Bcc:
> > > 999999999999-close@bugs.debian.org` then the mail that arrives at the
> > > BTS does *not* have the 999999999999-close@bugs.debian.org address in
> > > the email header but only in the mail envelope - that is, when
> > > connecting the sending MTA will tell the BTS MTA "RCPT TO:
> > > 999999999999-close@bugs.debian.org"
> > > and that's it. This will close the bug, but the address
> > > 999999999999-close@bugs.debian.org will not be visible in the email
> > > that's archived...
> > 
> > Funny, just some minutes before your mail I have filed
> > bug #992755 as a place to test and document this
> > behaviour.
> > 
> > It's indeed as you stated.
> > 
> > Thus, I will reopen and rename that bug accordingly.
> 
> When I toggle "show useless messages" I think I do see the closure. And
> I see the one for 989734 too.

Yes, but only the notification (and one needs to see the full message).
But what if the close message is sent when an empty From or with
a From containing the 999999999999-close@bugs.debian.org address
of the bug[*] (such messages could come from spammers)?

[*] That could yield a loop, and this may depend on how it is broken.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

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

#101410 — Re: BTS not archiving Bcc: mails? [was: Re: inconsistent mailgraph settings]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Yes, but only the notification (and one needs to see the full message).
> But what if the close message is sent when an empty From or with
> a From containing the 999999999999-close@bugs.debian.org address
> of the bug[*] (such messages could come from spammers)?
> 
> [*] That could yield a loop, and this may depend on how it is broken.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> Yet the BTS says that the message with this Message-Id has closed the bug:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=989734;msg=29


There some (understandable) confusion here. The BTS reports closures as
"Reply sent to whoever@example.com: You have taken responsibility. (Fri,
20 Aug 2021 13:33:06 GMT) (full text, mbox, link)." and has done so for
about 20 years.

The BTS (like all e-mail systems) totally ignores what is in To/Cc when
processing e-mail, and only pays attention to the SMTP RCPT TO and MAIL
FROM.

Normally -done messages include the done address in the To: header, so
it's pretty obvious which message actually caused a bug to be closed,
but it is not required.

-- 
Don Armstrong                      https://www.donarmstrong.com

"The trouble with you, Ibid" he said, "is that you think you're the
biggest bloody authority on everything"
 -- Terry Pratchet _Pyramids_ p146

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

#101309 — Re: BTS not archiving Bcc: mails? [was: Re: inconsistent mailgraph settings]

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

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 02:21:04AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2021-08-22 23:32:15 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 08:25:41PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> > > Wouldn't the Bcc'ed email that arrived to the BTS be visible in the bug's
> > > log/archive (on the bug's page (https://bugs.debian.org/989734))?
> > It's visible: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=989734;msg=27
> 
> Where? I don't see any "close" or "done".
Yet the BTS says that the message with this Message-Id has closed the bug:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=989734;msg=29

-- 
WBR, wRAR

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

#101299

On 2021-08-21 10:36:04 +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> In particular it *seems* to work for him and he doesn't have access to your
> system where things apparently went wrong so it could be really hard for him
> to know. So what you can do is to try to debug *yourself* why the upgrade
> went wrong and come forth with some analysis that shows to root cause of the
> breakage. And then you can also propose a fix. I am sure that would make it
> a lot easier for the maintainer to do "the right thing".

Unfortunately, that's too late, because the issue (at least one part
of it) occurred during the upgrade, and unfortunately, I can't install
the previous version (due to unsatisfied dependencies) to try to
reproduce the bug.

> > While mailgraph was started on boot in the past, this stopped
> > working with the upgrade to Debian 10, and I had to enable it
> > again. So issues with the upgrade to Debian 11, but the mailgraph
> > package has not changed. And who knows what will happend with
> > the next upgrade...
> > 
> > I can see in the debian/default.conf file:
> > 
> > # Should Mailgraph start on boot (true|false) (default: true)
> > BOOT_START="true"
> > 
> > So I don't understand what is the intent for the default settings.
> > To run it on boot or not???
> 
> Evidently the package is offering a choice on whether to start or not to
> start mailgraph on boot. By virtue of that option existing it seems that not
> everybody wants mailgraph to be started on boot.

Yes, but this option was honored in the previous version and
is no longer honored (note that there wasn't an announce of
any change).

> > Note that I was already using systemd in Debian 9, so that it is
> > not normal that mailgraph stopped working after the upgrade to
> > Debian 10.
> 
> Don't be all up in arms about the problem. Try to find out why it's broken
> and try to propose a fix and to work with the maintainer.

I no longer have any Debian 9 machine.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

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

#101305

On 23.08.21 02:35, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2021-08-21 10:36:04 +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>> In particular it *seems* to work for him and he doesn't have access to your
>> system where things apparently went wrong so it could be really hard for him
>> to know. So what you can do is to try to debug *yourself* why the upgrade
>> went wrong and come forth with some analysis that shows to root cause of the
>> breakage. And then you can also propose a fix. I am sure that would make it
>> a lot easier for the maintainer to do "the right thing".
> 
> Unfortunately, that's too late, because the issue (at least one part
> of it) occurred during the upgrade, and unfortunately, I can't install
> the previous version (due to unsatisfied dependencies) to try to
> reproduce the bug.
> 
>>> While mailgraph was started on boot in the past, this stopped
>>> working with the upgrade to Debian 10, and I had to enable it
>>> again. So issues with the upgrade to Debian 11, but the mailgraph
>>> package has not changed. And who knows what will happend with
>>> the next upgrade...
>>>
>>> I can see in the debian/default.conf file:
>>>
>>> # Should Mailgraph start on boot (true|false) (default: true)
>>> BOOT_START="true"
>>>
>>> So I don't understand what is the intent for the default settings.
>>> To run it on boot or not???
>>
>> Evidently the package is offering a choice on whether to start or not to
>> start mailgraph on boot. By virtue of that option existing it seems that not
>> everybody wants mailgraph to be started on boot.
> 
> Yes, but this option was honored in the previous version and
> is no longer honored (note that there wasn't an announce of
> any change).
> 
>>> Note that I was already using systemd in Debian 9, so that it is
>>> not normal that mailgraph stopped working after the upgrade to
>>> Debian 10.
>>
>> Don't be all up in arms about the problem. Try to find out why it's broken
>> and try to propose a fix and to work with the maintainer.
> 
> I no longer have any Debian 9 machine.

     # apt-get install docker
     # docker pull debian:buster
     # docker run -ti debian:bullseye bash
     root@e6cbe6c64846:/# apt-get update && apt-get install mailgraph

?
*t

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

#101306

On 23.08.21 07:24, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> On 23.08.21 02:35, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>> On 2021-08-21 10:36:04 +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>>> In particular it *seems* to work for him and he doesn't have access 
>>> to your
>>> system where things apparently went wrong so it could be really hard 
>>> for him
>>> to know. So what you can do is to try to debug *yourself* why the 
>>> upgrade
>>> went wrong and come forth with some analysis that shows to root cause 
>>> of the
>>> breakage. And then you can also propose a fix. I am sure that would 
>>> make it
>>> a lot easier for the maintainer to do "the right thing".
>>
>> Unfortunately, that's too late, because the issue (at least one part
>> of it) occurred during the upgrade, and unfortunately, I can't install
>> the previous version (due to unsatisfied dependencies) to try to
>> reproduce the bug.
>>
>>>> While mailgraph was started on boot in the past, this stopped
>>>> working with the upgrade to Debian 10, and I had to enable it
>>>> again. So issues with the upgrade to Debian 11, but the mailgraph
>>>> package has not changed. And who knows what will happend with
>>>> the next upgrade...
>>>>
>>>> I can see in the debian/default.conf file:
>>>>
>>>> # Should Mailgraph start on boot (true|false) (default: true)
>>>> BOOT_START="true"
>>>>
>>>> So I don't understand what is the intent for the default settings.
>>>> To run it on boot or not???
>>>
>>> Evidently the package is offering a choice on whether to start or not to
>>> start mailgraph on boot. By virtue of that option existing it seems 
>>> that not
>>> everybody wants mailgraph to be started on boot.
>>
>> Yes, but this option was honored in the previous version and
>> is no longer honored (note that there wasn't an announce of
>> any change).
>>
>>>> Note that I was already using systemd in Debian 9, so that it is
>>>> not normal that mailgraph stopped working after the upgrade to
>>>> Debian 10.
>>>
>>> Don't be all up in arms about the problem. Try to find out why it's 
>>> broken
>>> and try to propose a fix and to work with the maintainer.
>>
>> I no longer have any Debian 9 machine.
> 
>      # apt-get install docker
>      # docker pull debian:buster
>      # docker run -ti debian:bullseye bash
>      root@e6cbe6c64846:/# apt-get update && apt-get install mailgraph

Sorry, correction:

       # apt-get install docker
       # docker pull debian:stretch
       # docker run -ti debian:stretch bash
       root@e6cbe6c64846:/# apt-get update && apt-get install mailgraph
       root@e6cbe6c64846:/# sed --in-place 's/stretch/buster/' 
/etc/apt/source.list
       root@e6cbe6c64846:/# apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade

Rebooting that docker container will throw away the changes I guess so 
you'll need to put the commands above that you'd execute inside the 
container in a Dockerfile:

     $ cat Dockerfile
     FROM debian:stretch
     RUN  apt-get update && apt-get install mailgraph
     RUN sed --in-place 's/stretch/buster/' /etc/apt/source.list
     RUN apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade

and create a new, dist-upgraded container:

     $ docker build -t debian:stretch2buster Dockerfile
     $ docker run -ti debian:stretch2buster bash

?
*t

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.devel

csiph-web