At Wed, 23 Jul 2014 01:52:30 +0200,
Arno Töll wrote:
> However, if you call aptitude --purge-unused:
>
> - apt purges apache2.2-common. This calls apache2.2-common's postrm
> purge, wiping all our configuration
> - install apache2{-bin,-data}
> - preinst apache2 detects an upgrade, but has no clue
On 2014-07-23 02:05:26 +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
> On 23.07.2014 01:19, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > BTW, I'm wondering whether the fact that "invoke.rc-d apache2 restart"
> > fails should make the postinst script fail and affect the whole upgrade.
>
> It does actually as we fixed #716921 a while back
On 23.07.2014 01:19, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> BTW, I'm wondering whether the fact that "invoke.rc-d apache2 restart"
> fails should make the postinst script fail and affect the whole upgrade.
It does actually as we fixed #716921 a while back.
> If the goal is to make the user notice that Apache d
On 23.07.2014 01:19, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> Possible radical solution: abandon old apache binary package names
> [of those that ship conffiles], introduce a new set of names,
> Conflict/Break (but not Replace?) the old ones and have all modules
> depend on the new packages.
> 3rdparty modu
On 2014-07-23 01:19:01 +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> * Arno Töll [140722 22:10]:
> > On 21.07.2014 20:58, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > Yes, and a consequence of this loss is that dpkg fails.
> >
> > dpkg does not at all fail. If anything dpkg errors out because Apache's
> > maintainer sc
* Arno Töll [140722 22:10]:
> On 21.07.2014 20:58, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, and a consequence of this loss is that dpkg fails.
> >
>
> dpkg does not at all fail. If anything dpkg errors out because Apache's
> maintainer script failed, because "invoke.rc-d apache2 restart" failed,
>
On 2014-07-22 22:10:07 +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
> On 21.07.2014 20:58, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > Yes, and a consequence of this loss is that dpkg fails.
>
> dpkg does not at all fail. If anything dpkg errors out because Apache's
> maintainer script failed, because "invoke.rc-d apache2 restart" fai
On 21.07.2014 20:58, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> Yes, and a consequence of this loss is that dpkg fails.
>
dpkg does not at all fail. If anything dpkg errors out because Apache's
maintainer script failed, because "invoke.rc-d apache2 restart" failed,
because ... you guess it, somebody removed the
On 2014-07-17 15:44:18 +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
> On 17.07.2014 15:38, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > My understanding was that the new apache binaries would install new
> > config files, and it would then work? (With the correct
> > replaces/breaks/...)
>
> Yes. However, Apache has a notable nu
Hi,
On 14.07.2014 14:05, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> How about creating a new apache2-config package just to move these
> configuration files?
for the record: from an informal request the Release Team does not seem
to be comfortable with anything like that. Therefore, I suspect if
anything, I nee
On Jo, 17 iul 14, 03:17:35, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2014-07-16 14:28:00 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:36:32AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > I do that too. I haven't seen any official documentation saying that
> > > this is a bad thing to do.
> >
> > apti
On 17.07.2014 15:38, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> My understanding was that the new apache binaries would install new
> config files, and it would then work? (With the correct
> replaces/breaks/...)
Yes. However, Apache has a notable number of configuration files (not
conffiles), namely symlink
* Vincent Lefevre [140717 04:02]:
> On 2014-07-17 03:21:28 +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > * Arno Töll [140713 13:25]:
> > > * Ignore the problem, and refer to the manpage of aptitude without
> > > proper fix etc. which clearly says "THIS OPTION CAN CAUSE DATA LOSS! DO
> > > NOT USE IT U
On 2014-07-17 03:21:28 +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> * Arno Töll [140713 13:25]:
> > * Ignore the problem, and refer to the manpage of aptitude without
> > proper fix etc. which clearly says "THIS OPTION CAN CAUSE DATA LOSS! DO
> > NOT USE IT UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING". The bad n
Hi Arno,
* Arno Töll [140713 13:25]:
> [..]
>
> To summarize the bug reports: The problem is, that Apache package
> maintainers at that time decided, that third party modules shall depend
> on apache2.2-common, by guaranteeing ABIs remain stable as long as the
> package name does not change. [..
On 2014-07-16 14:28:00 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:36:32AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > I do that too. I haven't seen any official documentation saying that
> > this is a bad thing to do.
>
> aptitude actively warns against it as highlighted in this thread.
On 2014-07-16 13:46:12 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 11:41:25 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2014-07-13 13:17:24 +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
> > > Unfortunately it turns out, that /a lot/ of people use "aptitude
> > > --purge-unused safe-upgrade", or the apt equivalent "apt-
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:36:32AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2014-07-14 08:53:22 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > But I normally use "apt-get --purge dist-upgrade" both to upgrade
> > across distros and to stay within one distro (or sid), because
> > otherwise I get issues:
> >
> > * Run
Hi!
On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 11:41:25 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2014-07-13 13:17:24 +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
> > Unfortunately it turns out, that /a lot/ of people use "aptitude
> > --purge-unused safe-upgrade", or the apt equivalent "apt-get
> > dist-upgrade --purge" which causes dpkg to pur
On 2014-07-14 08:53:22 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> But I normally use "apt-get --purge dist-upgrade" both to upgrade
> across distros and to stay within one distro (or sid), because
> otherwise I get issues:
>
> * Running upgrade before dist-upgrade sometimes doesn't get the
> dependencies r
On 2014-07-13 13:17:24 +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
> Unfortunately it turns out, that /a lot/ of people use "aptitude
> --purge-unused safe-upgrade", or the apt equivalent "apt-get
> dist-upgrade --purge" which causes dpkg to purge the user's
> configuration, in particular enabled modules, during the u
Jeff Epler wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I use apt dist-upgrade normally and then, periodically, run:
> > dpkg --get-selections | grep deinstall | awk '{ print $1 }' \
> > | xargs dpkg --purge
> >
> > This is obviously somewhat unsafe. It would be neat to have a tool that
> > would
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 09:52:12AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I use apt dist-upgrade normally and then, periodically, run:
>
> dpkg --get-selections | grep deinstall | awk '{ print $1 }' \
> | xargs dpkg --purge
>
> This is obviously somewhat unsafe. It would be neat to have a tool
On 2014-07-14 18:52 +0200, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Thorsten Glaser writes:
>
>> * Running dist-upgrade without --purge will keep packages in 'rc'
>> state around, which a later APT call will not even recognise;
>> you need to manually "dpkg --purge pkg1 pkg2 ..." to get rid
>> of them
>
> I u
Thorsten Glaser writes:
> * Running dist-upgrade without --purge will keep packages in 'rc'
> state around, which a later APT call will not even recognise;
> you need to manually "dpkg --purge pkg1 pkg2 ..." to get rid
> of them
I use apt dist-upgrade normally and then, periodically, run:
bofh80 dixit:
>"apt-get --purge dist-upgrade"
> How does this now translate to over the new apt full-upgrade?
I do not use “the new apt ” anything command. It is purely optional,
and you can use apt-cache and apt-get as you are used to.
>"apt-get --purge dist-upgrade --auto-remove pkgtoinstall p
Le dimanche 13 juillet 2014 à 15:28 +0200, Arno Töll a écrit :
> > Moving them to apache2 package would mean you won't have to move them
> > again in the upgrade to apache 2.4, but it would create a new and
> > circular dependency of apache2.2-common on apache2. Given that
> > apache2.2-common alre
h01ger wrote:
>I've never used "upgrade --purge" _in one step_ and I don't think it's a
>particularily smart idea at all. But if people want to shoot themselves in
The --purge is a no-op with "upgrade".
But I normally use "apt-get --purge dist-upgrade" both to upgrade
across distros and to stay
Hi Arno,
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014, at 13:17, Arno Töll wrote:
> Hello,
>
> we've got a problem with Apache that causes problems during upgrades
> (e.g. #716880, #752922, #711925). In short, the issue is that Apache 2.4
> changed ABIs, so that we need to ensure that dpkg properly removes
> packages li
Hey there.
On 07/13/2014 08:36 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi Arno,
>
> On Sonntag, 13. Juli 2014, Arno Töll wrote:
>> * Ignore the problem, and refer to the manpage of aptitude without
>> proper fix etc. which clearly says "THIS OPTION CAN CAUSE DATA LOSS! DO
>> NOT USE IT UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU
Hi Jeroen,
On 13.07.2014 15:09, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> It's not really ideal either, but another option would be doing an
> update in the next wheezy point release preparing this migration. For
> example moving the configuration files from apache2.2-common to
> apache2 or apache2.2-bin in wheezy
At Sun, 13 Jul 2014 13:17:24 +0200,
Arno Töll wrote:
> What would you do in our situation? Side note 2: We kinda expected this
> situation and added a trapdoor in Wheezy [1], but it turned out, that
> even that is not good enough to prevent havoc with --purge-unused.
It's not really ideal either,
Hi Arno,
On Sonntag, 13. Juli 2014, Arno Töll wrote:
> * Ignore the problem, and refer to the manpage of aptitude without
> proper fix etc. which clearly says "THIS OPTION CAN CAUSE DATA LOSS! DO
> NOT USE IT UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING".
seems right to me, given the alternatives you descr
33 matches
Mail list logo
