Could we have a justification for why this is important for SRU, please?
As written, the Impact statement describes a bug, but doesn't present
any explanation of why it is important for Ubuntu to fix it in its
stable releases. If it is just that the output might be wrong and we'd
like it to be correct, then it should be sufficient to be fixed in the
next release.
There is a cost to every SRU in terms of review, sponsorship and SRU
review time, and then for millions of users to download and install yet
another update. I'm sure most users do not want to download many
megabytes just for this type of stable release update (this binary is
small, but doing this kind of thing across many packages adds up), so
there needs to be a strong justification for doing it.
We can stage this change to be bundled with another fix should it ever
come, but note that we've been doing this kind of thing for a while and
many such changes never land before the release EOLs, meaning that such
review efforts were wasted and better spent on other reviews instead.
I'm setting this Won't Fix for now since, as described, the Impact
statement does not provide sufficient justification for an SRU.
We can reconsider if we have a report of a real user story that
demonstrates why this is of high enough impact to users to be worth
fixing it.
** Changed in: procps (Ubuntu Focal)
Status: New => Won't Fix
** Changed in: procps (Ubuntu Jammy)
Status: New => Won't Fix
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to procps in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2035061
Title:
uptime -p reports incorrect output after 52 weeks
Status in procps package in Ubuntu:
Fix Released
Status in procps source package in Focal:
Won't Fix
Status in procps source package in Jammy:
Won't Fix
Bug description:
[ Impact ]
uptime -p will provide incorrect data for 24 hours after exactly 52 weeks.
Users and tools utilizing this command will receive example output "up 2 hours"
instead of "up 52 weeks, 2 hours". After 24 hours since 52 weeks, uptime -p
will report "up 1 year" which is correct output.
Issue is already fixed in upstream
https://gitlab.com/procps-ng/procps/-/commit/0496b39876d569fe1cecb76ad5ef212cd14c0374.
Latest procps releases already include this patch (procps 4.0.3 lunar/mantic)
The fix is needed for following set of packages:
procps | 2:3.3.17-6ubuntu2 | jammy
procps | 2:3.3.16-1ubuntu2 | focal
[ Test Plan ]
Reproduction:
UPTIME="31528920 31528800"; mkfifo uptime_fifo; while true; do cat <<<$UPTIME
> uptime_fifo; done & sudo mount -obind uptime_fifo /proc/uptime
uptime -p
Running above commands will result in incorrect uptime output.
Testing:
In attached uptime_test_results file there is modified print_uptime function
which has been used to test multiple corner cases.
[ Where problems could occur ]
Proposed changes modifies output format of "uptime -p". Issue has been
already fixed in latest version of procps package available in lunar/mantic
however older releases are based on different code base and patch cannot be
directly cherry-picked. Due to backport requirements some code of "uptime"
(without -p) has been also changed but this should not impact logic for that
usage.
As the change focuses on modifying "uptime -p" output format any potential
issues will impact this command.
I have also looked for a reverse dependencies on procps package to check for
potential uses of uptime -p, however I was not able to find any. Internally
within procps package this functionality is used in "top" application, however
for that case "uptime" (without -p) is used.
[ Other Info ]
Bug upstream: https://gitlab.com/procps-ng/procps/-/issues/217
Following patch is needed for older releases:
https://gitlab.com/procps-ng/procps/-/commit/0496b39876d569fe1cecb76ad5ef212cd14c0374
Old commit on which upstream patch is based:
https://gitlab.com/procps-ng/procps/-/commit/8827c6763f79f77a126968e200b0e402de7cb749
Small change on top of proposed patch (already included in debdiff):
https://gitlab.com/procps-ng/procps/-/commit/10824b0655f3eeaeac87ae6e4e3881429a237f3e
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/procps/+bug/2035061/+subscriptions
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
