On Wed, 2020-03-04 at 03:49:39 +1030, Robie Basak wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 09:09:24AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: >> Thanks, it's easy enough to back out later (as long as someone actually >> raises a flag when things break!), so I'm ok with that. > > bacula's various postinsts (at least bacula-sd.postinst) fail with > fs.protected_regular=2. This breaks at package install time, which is > perhaps marginally worse than runtime. The fix is trivial though, and > I'll be landing it soon. > > A rerun of the bacula autopkgtests following the fs.protected_regular > change would have detected this case. > > I'm not sure we have enough data yet to make a final decision on > fs.protected_regular=2 for Focal, but this is another data point. > > I'm not sure if it would be useful or not to rerun autopkgtests for the > entire archive. There would certainly be a large amount of noise. It > might be the case that maintainer scripts are more prone to this kind of > thing because of their heavy use of shell and commonly mktemp. A survey > of package maintainer scripts that use both mktemp and chown might be > another analysis method. But of course they might source files from > elsewhere, which would be non-trivial to follow. >
Whilst it might not be feasible to rerun all of the autopkgtests for the entire archive, I wonder whether perhaps just installing and removing all* packages from the archive would be enough to find these corner cases, particularly if they are most likely in postinst etc scripts? > Here are details of the bacula case: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=953030 > https://code.launchpad.net/~racb/ubuntu/+source/bacula/+git/bacula/+merge/380163 *install --reinstall for already installed packages and install followed by remove for ones which are not already installed on the given system under test -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
