Pkg xen devel - Feb 2019 - Bug#923401: /etc/default/xen conffile vs. ucf

Package: xen-utils-common
Version: 4.11.1+26-g87f51bf366-2

In stretch, /etc/default/xen was a ucf config file.  In buster until
recently it was absent, with some special casing in rules etc. to
handle its removal.  in recent buster it is back, as a dpk-ghandld
file.  I think we should not switch from ucf to dpkg-handled for
buster.  We should rtain ucf.

How about this patch ?  salsa#diziet/default-xen-ucf

I have done a test build and the result seemed to work.  I'm pretty
sure it's right for upgrades from stretch since for that it is
completely standard use of ucf.  I think it is right for upgrades from
testing too.

I did an install test of a machine with sid's package and it installed
and the result is /etc/default/xen as an `obsolete' conffile in dpkg,
and ucf seems happy and there is ucf metadata for the file now.

Ian.

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-etc-default-xen-Handle-with-ucf.patch
URL:
<http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-xen-devel/attachments/20190227/f0519172/attachment.ksh>
-------------- next part --------------



-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson at chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my
own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

On 2/27/19 6:08 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Package: xen-utils-common
> Version: 4.11.1+26-g87f51bf366-2
> 
> In stretch, /etc/default/xen was a ucf config file.  In buster until
> recently it was absent, with some special casing in rules etc. to
> handle its removal.  in recent buster it is back, as a dpk-ghandld
> file.  I think we should not switch from ucf to dpkg-handled for
> buster.  We should rtain ucf.
> 
> How about this patch ?  salsa#diziet/default-xen-ucf
> 
> I have done a test build and the result seemed to work.  I'm pretty
> sure it's right for upgrades from stretch since for that it is
> completely standard use of ucf.  I think it is right for upgrades from
> testing too.
> 
> I did an install test of a machine with sid's package and it installed
> and the result is /etc/default/xen as an `obsolete' conffile in dpkg,
> and ucf seems happy and there is ucf metadata for the file now.
Pasting parts of the diffs because it was an attachment:

diff --git a/debian/not-installed b/debian/not-installed
index 5ffa447587..7888222c55 100644
--- a/debian/not-installed
+++ b/debian/not-installed
@@ -7,7 +7,6 @@ etc/init.d/xendriverdomain
 etc/init.d/xencommons
 etc/init.d/xen-watchdog
 etc/init.d/xendomains
-etc/default/xencommons

^^
etc/default/xencommons in debian/not-installed has to stay, because of
the dh-exec bug:

https://salsa.debian.org/xen-team/debian-xen/commit/2501ae058a50920e0c5dec9828ae62597df10a7b

--- a/debian/rules
+++ b/debian/rules
@@ -320,4 +320,3 @@ override_dh_missing:
 # earlier versions.  See ./ucf-remove-fixup for more details.
 override_dh_ucf:
 	dh_ucf
-	debian/ucf-remove-fixup xen-utils-common /etc/default/xen

^^
What about removing all of this, and the now obsolete comment?
Overriding dh_ucf to only do dh_ucf doesn't seem useful?

Ah, I now see that we already still had a xen-utils-common.ucf which was
still in place. I was wondering how ucf could do the right thing here,
but now it makes sense. I still don't fully understand all of it, but I
can help testing scenarios.

So, what about other files? Should also e.g. add /etc/default/xendomains
to ucf? /etc/xen/oxenstored.conf?

Hans

Hans van Kranenburg writes ("Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] Bug#923401:
/etc/default/xen conffile vs. ucf"):
> etc/default/xencommons in debian/not-installed has to stay, because of
> the dh-exec bug:
Right, I noticed that when merging our changes.  Thanks for the clear
explanation in commentary which helped me decide what to do.
> Ah, I now see that we already still had a xen-utils-common.ucf which was
> still in place. I was wondering how ucf could do the right thing here,
> but now it makes sense. I still don't fully understand all of it, but I
> can help testing scenarios.
I'm pretty sure it's fine now.
> So, what about other files? Should also e.g. add /etc/default/xendomains
> to ucf? /etc/xen/oxenstored.conf?
Let's not change more than we need to.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson at chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my
own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Your message dated Thu, 28 Feb 2019 17:37:18 +0000
with message-id <E1gzPcU-0007w7-7c at fasolo.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#923401: fixed in xen 4.11.1+26-g87f51bf366-3
has caused the Debian Bug report #923401,
regarding /etc/default/xen conffile vs. ucf
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner at bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
923401: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=923401
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner at bugs.debian.org with problems
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Ian Jackson <ijackson at chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Subject: /etc/default/xen conffile vs. ucf
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 17:08:32 +0000
Size: 5627
URL:
<http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-xen-devel/attachments/20190228/79541ed1/attachment.mht>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Ian Jackson <ijackson at chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Subject: Bug#923401: fixed in xen 4.11.1+26-g87f51bf366-3
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 17:37:18 +0000
Size: 16577
URL:
<http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-xen-devel/attachments/20190228/79541ed1/attachment-0001.mht>