Web lists-archives.com

Re: apt-get upgrade removing ifupdown on jessie→stretch upgrade




Dear David,

Thank you for your witty response, and your work on APT. I mean it.
I am quite sure you get a lot of diverging requests and then one
like mine, without version numbers, logs, but CAPITAL LETTERS
instead.

While your points are spot-on, and I especially liked "this is
a proposal, not a EULA", I've been using APT since one of its first
versions, and I think "upgrade" has existed from the early days with
precisely the promise that, unlike "dist-upgrade", it would not
modify the set of installed packages, either way. Thence stems my
habit to run "apt-get upgrade" without reading the "proposal",
unlike when I run "dist-upgrade" or "install"/"remove"/"purge"
instead.

So I hope you understand that the confusion when I saw what had
happened. Fortunately, the damage wasn't so bad, but just imagine
this had happened via an SSH connection on a machine without console
access…

Now for your input:

> I am not opposed to the possibility of bugs in apt in general, but
> the amount of "upgrade with removal"-bugs which all turned out to
> be either scrollback-confusion, aliases or wrapper scripts is
> astonishing, so triple-double-check this first.

I sixtuple-checked as per your instructions and can confirm that the
apt-get I invoked was /usr/bin/apt-get from apt==1.0.9.8.4 and there
were no aliases or wrapper scripts involved. I checked this, but
I also purposely never have any of those when logged in as root.

I am not sure what you mean with scrollback-confusion. I mean, APT
told me it'd remove the packages, which I didn't see, and so when
I agreed, it removed them. And I recovered, and that's not a big
deal, but it shouldn't have put the packages up for removal in the
first place. And I cannot come up with a case where it should have
done that.

> have run and which solutions were applied due to it. That also
> includes dates, so you might be able to fish
> a /var/lib/dpkg/status file from before the "bad" interaction in
> /var/backups/dpkg.status.*.

I'm now taking this to a bug report:

  http://bugs.debian.org/855891

> in general: native tools are offtopic (by thread popularity) on
> d-d@ …
> 
> … but let me help you to get the thread some replies: I don't have
> ifupdown installed anymore. systemd-networkd + wpa_supplicant FTW.
> (also: RC bugs for all node packages failing a cat-picture test!)

Oh, the cynicism… ;)

Don't worry, I won't take your bait. This is a headless madchine in
a remote datacentre running 24/7. There's KVM access, fortunately.
I just need it to come up with its static IPs on every boot and
ifupdown has been doing a fantastic job for years with that.

> Oh, and of course the standard reply: You know, apt does print
> a proposal not an EULA – so you don't have to press 'yes' without
> reading.

This still made my day. ♥

-- 
 .''`.   martin f. krafft <madduck@d.o> @martinkrafft
: :'  :  proud Debian developer
`. `'`   http://people.debian.org/~madduck
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
 
echo Prpv a\'rfg cnf har cvcr | tr Pacfghnrvp Cnpstuaeic

Attachment: digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital GPG signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)