On 19 March 2013 07:07, Francesco Poli <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 17:34:03 +0800 Daniel Hartwig wrote: >> What follows is a somewhat >> verbose justification and answer to some of your previous questions. >> Responses should go to #628996 only, please. > > Excluding your address and also Serafeim's one?
No, I meant only to exclude the other bug report which is now quite unrelated to this topic. :-) > >> >> Apt-listbugs is run in a similar context as package maintainer >> scripts. Debian policy #6.3 applies: >> >> Maintainer scripts are no longer guaranteed to run with a >> controlling terminal and must be able to fall back to >> noninteractive behavior (debconf handles this). Maintainer >> scripts may abort if there is no controlling terminal and no >> reasonable default for a high-priority question, but should avoid >> this if possible. > > This is already complied with, even though in a somewhat brutal way. > > Quoting apt-listbugs(1) man page: > > · -n, --force-no Assumes that you select no for all questions. > This option is assumed if stdout is not a terminal or if > /dev/tty cannot be opened. > > Hence, I would say that, when there is no controlling terminal, > apt-listbugs falls back to a non-interactive behavior (assuming a > negative answer for each question that would otherwise be asked to the > user). > This implies that, if the upgrade or installation risks introducing RC > bugs into the system, then the (non-interactive) apt session is forced > to stop. Otherwise, everything goes on, as if apt-listbugs were never > invoked. I see. So, except for the previous hanging issue with packagekit, apt-listbugs is more-or-less compliant in its operation and, as per your later comments, its fallback behaviour is somewhat configurable. >> - abort always when RC bugs. >> >> The second is, IMO, the more reasonable default. > > I believe it's the currently implemented default. Yes. >> > (B) will a DebconfFrontend be (necessary and) enough to make >> > apt-listbugs work well with packagekit? >> >> It depends what you mean by ‘work well’. > > I mean that, during this bug log, I began suspecting that packagekit > did not send the hook info to hook scripts. > If this is the case, then using debconf would not be enough to let > apt-listbugs work with packagekit. > This was never clarified. > Packagekit-backend-aptcc uses libapt-pkg4.12, which certainly does send the hook information. The reason for the apt-listbugs hanging must lie in some other aspect of the running environment. > [...] >> Though packagekit by design does not allow interaction with the user, > > Wait, what do you mean? > I was under the impression that user interaction through debconf was > allowed... Yes, my mistake. Anyway, I think we all like to at least test a debconf interface and get some interaction in situations without /dev/tty. So some project for the near future. Regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
