> 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
