[Piuparts-devel] Bug#744398: why should debsums care about obsolete conffiles?

[Holger Levsen]

Hi Axel,

On Samstag, 26. April 2014, Axel Beckert wrote:
> I had a _short_ look at the code and I think I have an idea where I
> could hook into debsums' workflow. Here's a prelimiary patch which may
> mitigate these issues:

this patch works for me well, thanks a lot!
 
> It doesn't seem perfect (if it considers a file FAILED, it checks if
> the assumed package is the correct one and ignores the case if not),

AIUI thats exactly the desired behaviour as discussed in #689508

> but it seems to do the trick at least with this example:

yup.

> While it's probably not perfect, especially in the latter case, I think,
> this may fix enough of the issue to allow to downgrade the severity of it.
> 
> The main reason why I don't check this for files considered "OK" is
> mainly the performance issue it would cause.
> 
> Instead of ignoring such cases we could also output something like
> "FAILED-BUT-OBSOLETE" and return 0. Would that help piuparts? That
> would be probably less invasive.

I think ignoring obsolete files is appropriate and otoh I don't consider your 
five lines intrusive.
 
> Maybe a place where more eyes would be on it, would be the Debian Perl
> Group -- it's written in Perl. Ryan is also a member, so he could
> easily continue to contribute while it would benefit from team
> maintenance.

I like this idea ;-)


cheers,
	Holger
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 828 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/piuparts-devel/attachments/20140428/17de11e8/attachment.sig>