Skip to content
Commits on Source (26)
......@@ -6,9 +6,9 @@ wishlist! And see the bottom of this file for wishlist bugs someone once
expressed…
for 0.8x, during the buster development cycle:
Some stuff we might tackle for 0.9x, during the buster development cycle:
- fix policy reference for old footnote 53, blocked by #879048
- do an 1.0.0 release, it's about time since 10 years :)
- README_server.txt: rewrite style a bit more. its super easy to setup now!
......@@ -27,10 +27,6 @@ for 0.8x, during the buster development cycle:
on the master arch to slaves of different archs ->
"schedule-evenly-to-slaves = no"
- once that works, update README_pejacevic: search for "soon shall go into operation..."
- piuparts-master: keep track of to whom a reservation was given
- more stats and graphs:
- new section stats page:
- packages processed per day and section, master writes submissions.txt
......@@ -44,10 +40,6 @@ for 0.8x, during the buster development cycle:
If master does that remove that sentence from README_server.txt again,
same with slave and tmp.
- piuparts.conf.pejacevic: maybe use mirror via nfs (faster)
- maybe compress all logfiles
- if it weren't for 'slave-bin/slave_cleanup', the slave would only need
rights to run "sudo piuparts" but nothing else. If we can clean this up,
the sudoers.d should recommend sudo (lsof|kill|umount) for admins.
......@@ -95,7 +87,13 @@ for 0.8x, during the buster development cycle:
(piuparts), adopting apt's naming
for 0.9x and later:
Ideas for 1.0.x and later:
- piuparts.conf.pejacevic: maybe use mirror via nfs (faster)
- maybe compress all logfiles
- piuparts-master: keep track of to whom a reservation was given
- install from git/Makefile: remove the need for /etc/piuparts
......@@ -121,19 +119,11 @@ for 0.9x and later:
be nice
for 1.xx and later:
- find_default_debian_mirrors:
- check whether find_default_debian_mirrors produces something useful if
sources.list does not exist (and sources.list.d/*.list is there instead)
- maybe just copy sources.list(.d/*) instead?
More ideas for even later:
- make it possible to call aptitude (or similar) instead of apt-get and allow to
override the commandline arguments.
- mount perhaps others (usbfs, sysfs, etc.) in the chroot
might be a good idea because some packages might need this.
- rewrite piuparts-analyze to run over all sections and cache BTS responses
- "decorate" (strike-through) bug links generated by piuparts-analyze to
......
......@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ Hi,
a test with piuparts revealed that your package misses the copyright
file after an upgrade, which is a violation of Policy 12.5:
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#copyright-information
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#copyright-information
After the upgrade /usr/share/doc/$PACKAGE/ is just an empty directory.
......@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ https://wiki.debian.org/MissingCopyrightFile
Note that dpkg intentionally does not replace directories with symlinks
and vice versa, you need the maintainer scripts to do this.
See in particular the end of point 4 in
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#details-of-unpack-phase-of-installation-or-upgrade
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-maintainerscripts.html#details-of-unpack-phase-of-installation-or-upgrade
It is recommended to use the dpkg-maintscript-helper commands
'dir_to_symlink' and 'symlink_to_dir' (available since dpkg 1.17.14)
......
......@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ during a test with piuparts I noticed your package starts processes
where it shouldn't. This is very probably due to not using invoke-rc.d
as mandated by policy 9.3.3.2. This is seriously disturbing! ;-)
See https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#interfacing-with-init-systems
See https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html#interfacing-with-init-systems
and /usr/share/doc/sysv-rc/README.invoke-rc.d.gz as well
as /usr/share/doc/sysv-rc/README.policy-rc.d.gz
......
......@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ because it tries to overwrite other packages files without declaring a
Breaks+Replaces relation.
See policy 7.6 at
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#overwriting-files-and-replacing-packages-replaces
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#overwriting-files-and-replacing-packages-replaces
From the attached log (scroll to the bottom...):
......
......@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ because it tries to overwrite files that are owned by other packages
without declaring a Breaks+Replaces relation.
See policy 7.6 at
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#overwriting-files-and-replacing-packages-replaces
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#overwriting-files-and-replacing-packages-replaces
This problem is exposed during the upgrade of the 'EXPOSER'
package, not by upgrading only the buggy package itself.
......
......@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ because it tries to overwrite other packages files without declaring a
Breaks+Replaces relation.
See policy 7.6 at
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#overwriting-files-and-replacing-packages-replaces
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#overwriting-files-and-replacing-packages-replaces
From the attached log (scroll to the bottom...):
......
......@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ but then the upgrade to 'wheezy' failed because it tries to overwrite
other packages files without declaring a Breaks+Replaces relation.
See policy 7.6 at
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#overwriting-files-and-replacing-packages-replaces
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#overwriting-files-and-replacing-packages-replaces
From the attached log (scroll to the bottom...):
......
......@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ because it tries to overwrite other packages files without declaring a
Breaks+Replaces relation.
See policy 7.6 at
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#overwriting-files-and-replacing-packages-replaces
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#overwriting-files-and-replacing-packages-replaces
From the attached log (scroll to the bottom...):
......
......@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ because it tries to overwrite other packages files without declaring a
Breaks+Replaces relation.
See policy 7.6 at
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#overwriting-files-and-replacing-packages-replaces
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#overwriting-files-and-replacing-packages-replaces
From the attached log (scroll to the bottom...):
......
......@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ because it tries to overwrite other packages files without declaring a
Breaks+Replaces relation.
See policy 7.6 at
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#overwriting-files-and-replacing-packages-replaces
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#overwriting-files-and-replacing-packages-replaces
This test intentionally skipped 'testing' to find file overwrite
problems before packages migrate from 'unstable' to 'testing'.
......
......@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ because it tries to overwrite other packages files without declaring a
Breaks+Replaces relation.
See policy 7.6 at
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#overwriting-files-and-replacing-packages-replaces
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#overwriting-files-and-replacing-packages-replaces
From the attached log (scroll to the bottom...):
......
......@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ because it tries to overwrite other packages files without declaring a
Breaks+Replaces relation.
See policy 7.6 at
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#overwriting-files-and-replacing-packages-replaces
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#overwriting-files-and-replacing-packages-replaces
From the attached log (scroll to the bottom...):
......
......@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ because it tries to overwrite other packages files without declaring a
Breaks+Replaces relation.
See policy 7.6 at
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#overwriting-files-and-replacing-packages-replaces
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#overwriting-files-and-replacing-packages-replaces
From the attached log (scroll to the bottom...):
......
......@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ It may break in subtle ways and dpkg cannot detect this as a problem.
"win" and all others have "lost".
Note that dpkg intentionally does not replace directories with
symlinks and vice versa, see in particular the end of point 4 in
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#details-of-unpack-phase-of-installation-or-upgrade
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-maintainerscripts.html#details-of-unpack-phase-of-installation-or-upgrade
(Note: Adding Pre-Depends is *not* a solution.)
Please move the files shipped in your package to the "real" location.
......
......@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ Hi,
during a test with piuparts I noticed your package left unowned files on
the system after purge, which is a violation of policy 6.8:
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#details-of-removal-and-or-configuration-purging
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-maintainerscripts.html#details-of-removal-and-or-configuration-purging
The leftover files are actually alternatives that were installed by the
package but have not been properly removed.
......
......@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ during a test with piuparts I noticed the maintainer scripts of your
package don't support all the ways they are going to be called.
See policy 6.5 at
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#summary-of-ways-maintainer-scripts-are-called
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-maintainerscripts.html#summary-of-ways-maintainer-scripts-are-called
From the attached log (scroll to the bottom...):
......
......@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ Hi,
during a test with piuparts I noticed your package modifies conffiles.
This is forbidden by the policy, see
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#configuration-files
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#configuration-files
10.7.3: "[...] The easy way to achieve this behavior is to make the
configuration file a conffile. [...] This implies that the default
......
......@@ -12,8 +12,8 @@ Hi,
during a test with piuparts I noticed your package left owned files on
the system after purge, which is a violation of policy 6.8 and 10.7.3:
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#details-of-removal-and-or-configuration-purging
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#behavior
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-maintainerscripts.html#details-of-removal-and-or-configuration-purging
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#behavior
From the attached log (scroll to the bottom...):
......
......@@ -13,8 +13,8 @@ during a test with piuparts I noticed your package left owned and
unowned files on the system after purge, which is a violation of
policy 6.8 and 10.7.3:
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#details-of-removal-and-or-configuration-purging
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#behavior
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-maintainerscripts.html#details-of-removal-and-or-configuration-purging
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-files.html#behavior
From the attached log (scroll to the bottom...):
......
......@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ The following relationships are currently defined:
The following relationships should be added for a clean takeover of
these files
(https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#overwriting-files-and-replacing-packages-replaces):
(https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#overwriting-files-and-replacing-packages-replaces):
Package:
Breaks:
......