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

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #80357 > unrolled thread

Bug#1051577: iproute2: obsolete conffiles

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

Contents

  Bug#1051577: iproute2: obsolete conffiles gregor herrmann <gregoa@debian.org> - 2023-09-10 01:00 +0200
    Bug#1051577: marked as done (iproute2: obsolete conffiles) "Debian Bug Tracking System" <owner@bugs.debian.org> - 2023-09-10 23:20 +0200
    Processed: Re: Bug#1051577: iproute2: obsolete conffiles "Debian Bug Tracking System" <owner@bugs.debian.org> - 2023-09-11 08:40 +0200
    Bug#1051577: iproute2: obsolete conffiles Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de> - 2023-09-11 08:50 +0200
    Bug#1051577: marked as done (iproute2: obsolete conffiles) "Debian Bug Tracking System" <owner@bugs.debian.org> - 2023-09-11 12:40 +0200
    Bug#1051577: iproute2: obsolete conffiles Luca Boccassi <luca.boccassi@gmail.com> - 2023-09-11 14:10 +0200
      Bug#1051577: iproute2: obsolete conffiles Daniel Gröber <dxld@darkboxed.org> - 2023-09-11 16:10 +0200
        Bug#1051577: iproute2: obsolete conffiles Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2023-09-12 23:20 +0200
      Bug#1051577: iproute2: obsolete conffiles Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2023-09-11 16:10 +0200
        Bug#1051577: iproute2: obsolete conffiles Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2023-09-12 23:20 +0200
    Bug#1051577: iproute2: obsolete conffiles Daniel Gröber <dxld@darkboxed.org> - 2023-09-11 14:10 +0200
    Bug#1051577: marked as done (iproute2: obsolete conffiles) "Debian Bug Tracking System" <owner@bugs.debian.org> - 2023-09-16 21:20 +0200

#80357 — Bug#1051577: iproute2: obsolete conffiles

Package: iproute2
Version: 6.5.0-1
Severity: normal

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

After upgrading to 6.5.0-1 adequate shows:

adequate found packaging bugs
- -----------------------------

iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/rt_tables.d/README
iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/rt_protos.d/README
iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/rt_protos
iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/rt_dsfield
iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/nl_protos
iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/ematch_map
iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/bpf_pinning

Cf. dpkg-maintscript-helper(1) and dh_installdeb(1) / package.maintscript
/ rm_conffile.

Cheers,
gregor

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=dToJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#80372 — Bug#1051577: marked as done (iproute2: obsolete conffiles)

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

Your message dated Sun, 10 Sep 2023 21:08:15 +0000
with message-id <E1qfRfD-005twG-70@fasolo.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#1051577: fixed in iproute2 6.5.0-2
has caused the Debian Bug report #1051577,
regarding iproute2: obsolete conffiles
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.)


-- 
1051577: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1051577
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems

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

#80376 — Processed: Re: Bug#1051577: iproute2: obsolete conffiles

Processing control commands:

> found -1 6.5.0-2
Bug #1051577 {Done: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>} [iproute2] iproute2: obsolete conffiles
Marked as found in versions iproute2/6.5.0-2; no longer marked as fixed in versions iproute2/6.5.0-2 and reopened.

-- 
1051577: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1051577
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems

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

#80377

Control: found -1 6.5.0-2

On 2023-09-10 00:55 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:

> Package: iproute2
> Version: 6.5.0-1
> Severity: normal
>
> After upgrading to 6.5.0-1 adequate shows:
>
> adequate found packaging bugs
> -----------------------------
>
> iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/rt_tables.d/README
> iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/rt_protos.d/README
> iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/rt_protos
> iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/rt_dsfield
> iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/nl_protos
> iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/ematch_map
> iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/bpf_pinning

There are a few more leftovers still present in 6.5.0-2:

,----
| $ adequate iproute2
| iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/group
| iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/rt_realms
| iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/rt_scopes
| iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/rt_tables
`----

There are also the directories /etc/iproute2/rt_protos.d,
/etc/iproute2/rt_tables.d and /etc/iproute2 which are no longer shipped
in the package.  Unfortunately dpkg-maintscript-helper does not clean
those up automatically (see #584185).

Cheers,
       Sven

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

#80387 — Bug#1051577: marked as done (iproute2: obsolete conffiles)

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

Your message dated Mon, 11 Sep 2023 10:33:57 +0000
with message-id <E1qfeEv-008Wbj-2d@fasolo.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#1051577: fixed in iproute2 6.5.0-3
has caused the Debian Bug report #1051577,
regarding iproute2: obsolete conffiles
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.)


-- 
1051577: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1051577
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems

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

#80390

On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 13:03, Daniel Gröber <dxld@darkboxed.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 08:32:10AM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > > After upgrading to 6.5.0-1 adequate shows:
> > >
> > > adequate found packaging bugs
> > > -----------------------------
> > >
> > > iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/rt_tables.d/README
> > > iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/rt_protos.d/README
> > > iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/rt_protos
> > > iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/rt_dsfield
> > > iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/nl_protos
> > > iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/ematch_map
> > > iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/bpf_pinning
> >
> > There are a few more leftovers still present in 6.5.0-2:
> >
> > ,----
> > | $ adequate iproute2
> > | iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/group
> > | iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/rt_realms
> > | iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/rt_scopes
> > | iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/rt_tables
> > `----
> >
> > There are also the directories /etc/iproute2/rt_protos.d,
> > /etc/iproute2/rt_tables.d and /etc/iproute2 which are no longer shipped
> > in the package.  Unfortunately dpkg-maintscript-helper does not clean
> > those up automatically (see #584185).
>
> I want to question whether removing these conffiles is a good idea at
> all. I'm probably one of the few people that actually muck around in there
> but it seems like this is going to break things for any users that do.
>
> Is it really sensible to move these files to /usr/lib in the standard
> Debian installation? It seems to me upstream only wants to better support
> /usr-only deployments without /etc:
>
>     commit 0a0a8f12fa1b03dd0ccbebf5f85209d1c8a0f580
>     Read configuration files from /etc and /usr
>
>     Add support for the so called "stateless" configuration pattern (read
>     from /etc, fall back to /usr), giving system administrators a way to
>     define local configuration without changing any distro-provided files.
>
>     In practice this means that each configuration file FOO is loaded
>     from /usr/lib/iproute2/FOO unless /etc/iproute2/FOO exists.
>
> So why not simply keep the conffiles in /etc for regular admins and let
> people that want to do image based deployments create /usr/lib/iproute2 if
> they want to override or remove /etc?

As far as I understand dpkg's conffile machinery should recognize if
you changed anything, and leave it in place. Upstream moved the
default ones to /usr, so we just follow what they do.

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

#80392

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

Hi Luca,

On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 01:06:06PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > I want to question whether removing these conffiles is a good idea at
> > all. I'm probably one of the few people that actually muck around in there
> > but it seems like this is going to break things for any users that do.
> 
> As far as I understand dpkg's conffile machinery should recognize if
> you changed anything, and leave it in place. Upstream moved the
> default ones to /usr, so we just follow what they do.

Right. Think of an admin having to adjust these config files though:
previously they could just `editor /etc/iproute2/rt_tables` and get on with
things. Now anyone needing to do that will have to do a doubletake, figure
out why /etc/iproute2 is missing, realize that it's at /usr/lib/iproute2
now, copy that over and finally edit.

Is that friction really warrented to cater to a specialized niche use-case?

Please consider overriding upstream's decision here.

--Daniel

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

#80410

On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 15:57, Daniel Gröber <dxld@darkboxed.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Luca,
>
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 01:06:06PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > > I want to question whether removing these conffiles is a good idea at
> > > all. I'm probably one of the few people that actually muck around in there
> > > but it seems like this is going to break things for any users that do.
> >
> > As far as I understand dpkg's conffile machinery should recognize if
> > you changed anything, and leave it in place. Upstream moved the
> > default ones to /usr, so we just follow what they do.
>
> Right. Think of an admin having to adjust these config files though:
> previously they could just `editor /etc/iproute2/rt_tables` and get on with
> things. Now anyone needing to do that will have to do a doubletake, figure
> out why /etc/iproute2 is missing, realize that it's at /usr/lib/iproute2
> now, copy that over and finally edit.
>
> Is that friction really warrented to cater to a specialized niche use-case?
>
> Please consider overriding upstream's decision here.

Yes, it is warranted, both because it's exactly the correct behaviour
for a package, and also because we are certainly not spending time and
resources to go against upstream choices, especially when they are the
right choices.

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

#80393

On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 01:06:06PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> As far as I understand dpkg's conffile machinery should recognize if
> you changed anything, and leave it in place. Upstream moved the
> default ones to /usr, so we just follow what they do.

Actually using rm_conffile is wrong.  This moves the file to
*.dpkg-bak.  However the expected behaviour is to keep them around
without renaming, just removed from the dpkg database.

Bastian

-- 
	"That unit is a woman."
	"A mass of conflicting impulses."
		-- Spock and Nomad, "The Changeling", stardate 3541.9

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

#80409

Control: severity -1 serious

(stop migration until I have time to further fix it)

On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 15:56, Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 01:06:06PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > As far as I understand dpkg's conffile machinery should recognize if
> > you changed anything, and leave it in place. Upstream moved the
> > default ones to /usr, so we just follow what they do.
>
> Actually using rm_conffile is wrong.  This moves the file to
> *.dpkg-bak.  However the expected behaviour is to keep them around
> without renaming, just removed from the dpkg database.

I see - I will do that next week, as I am travelling this week, so
bumping severity to stop migration

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

#80391

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

Hi,

On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 08:32:10AM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > After upgrading to 6.5.0-1 adequate shows:
> >
> > adequate found packaging bugs
> > -----------------------------
> >
> > iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/rt_tables.d/README
> > iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/rt_protos.d/README
> > iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/rt_protos
> > iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/rt_dsfield
> > iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/nl_protos
> > iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/ematch_map
> > iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/bpf_pinning
> 
> There are a few more leftovers still present in 6.5.0-2:
> 
> ,----
> | $ adequate iproute2
> | iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/group
> | iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/rt_realms
> | iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/rt_scopes
> | iproute2: obsolete-conffile /etc/iproute2/rt_tables
> `----
> 
> There are also the directories /etc/iproute2/rt_protos.d,
> /etc/iproute2/rt_tables.d and /etc/iproute2 which are no longer shipped
> in the package.  Unfortunately dpkg-maintscript-helper does not clean
> those up automatically (see #584185).

I want to question whether removing these conffiles is a good idea at
all. I'm probably one of the few people that actually muck around in there
but it seems like this is going to break things for any users that do.

Is it really sensible to move these files to /usr/lib in the standard
Debian installation? It seems to me upstream only wants to better support
/usr-only deployments without /etc:

    commit 0a0a8f12fa1b03dd0ccbebf5f85209d1c8a0f580
    Read configuration files from /etc and /usr
    
    Add support for the so called "stateless" configuration pattern (read
    from /etc, fall back to /usr), giving system administrators a way to
    define local configuration without changing any distro-provided files.
    
    In practice this means that each configuration file FOO is loaded
    from /usr/lib/iproute2/FOO unless /etc/iproute2/FOO exists.

So why not simply keep the conffiles in /etc for regular admins and let
people that want to do image based deployments create /usr/lib/iproute2 if
they want to override or remove /etc?

--Daniel

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

#80458 — Bug#1051577: marked as done (iproute2: obsolete conffiles)

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

Your message dated Sat, 16 Sep 2023 19:08:09 +0000
with message-id <E1qhaeH-00GYop-U1@fasolo.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#1051577: fixed in iproute2 6.5.0-4
has caused the Debian Bug report #1051577,
regarding iproute2: obsolete conffiles
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.)


-- 
1051577: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1051577
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web