[pkg-squid-devel] Bug#767256: unblock: squid3/3.4.8-2

[Amos Jeffries]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/11/2014 7:18 a.m., Luigi Gangitano wrote:
>> On 7/11/2014 4:51 a.m., Santiago Garcia Mantinan wrote:
>>>>> I didn't have the time to look at this new problem, and 
>>>>> don't know if I'll be able to look at it soon.
>>>> 
>>>> Can do in a few hours if you can send me your squid.conf for
>>>>  testing with.
>>> 
>>> The squid.conf is the one on squid3 from stable, change
>>> whatever param you want and you'll get to the bug, I explained
>>> it at #768170
>>> 
>>> Regards.
>>> 
>> 
>> I've added a script update to git repository that drops the 
>> problem ACL definition on upgrades (and restores if aborted).
> 
> I checked your patch and would like to investigate a couple of 
> details:
> 
> - is this the only configuration file conflict when upgrading from 
> stock wheezy?

It should be (but then I've said that before). The main difficulty is
that wheezy is 3.1, its jumping so many versions things maybe got
lost. But then a lot of effort to make the config parser
backward-compatible as far back as 2.5 has gone into those releases.

We MAY want to do something about "memory_pools_limit 0" to highlight
its meaning was changed from unlimited-bytes to 0-bytes in 3.2. Squid
will run fine with either setting, but may cause unexpected memory
allocation work for some users.


People will definitely need to be aware of the helper name changes
made in 3.2. That has come up in the squid-users mailing list a few
times now.
<http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v3/3.2/RELEASENOTES.html#ss2.6>

 ** I have been thinking recently we could use a "-k parse" scan to
symlink the old names in use to new ones, but only if they are being
used. That is also a major barrier to clean squid->squid3 transition.


> Can we add a list of conflicting config directives to NEWS.Debian?

If you like, section 3.2-ish of all the release notes 3.1

> - your patch leaves the squid.conf.upgrade-backup file in place
> even after successful upgrade. Shall we remove it?

I wasn't sure. I was thinking that if the had re-written the whole ACL
definition to something like a test of the admin IP address (seen it
happen), they might want the original around for reference.
 Your choice on that.

> 
>> If you guys can check that over I think this bug qualifies for
>> RC status.
> 
> I agree and would like to upload a fix as soon as possible. Do we 
> want any other fix in it?
> 

 "Provides: squid" for new installs? or does the absence of "squid"
package in Jesse cause apt to display the "packages named like
'squid'" info automatically?

Amos
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUYYqNAAoJELJo5wb/XPRjwOQIANK2VMDsitAJrQI6ja9F/BcM
xkNQ+knFlwyPbG1LS8GnQSBV7rugzQr1Wu5FfFl4tJzKX6h7b3vG+/gp75a7g81G
aFpPxs1nlrXIToxU3stu4expecUybanYs91VAYWfqnJ23IyxUPtsthAOvlRjOcC/
fKbTPA6Zj9m7pMXP2yrmxaK/iLhqqwT5EayHcpSvDyFugU9uAdXYjG6TuAi9n3Yb
GQSp9DdeUhHrnn5qWcoGnkIQUtl9+x/M/XdQvDdd61uIE24rLeEX3eRrq05NJo5H
hEdHJf1Ogs2q1wrpC3tKV7JTKF/noJQFvCPdY2XZ8CrG9V+j9DhU81AB2qlQ42M=
=kj8r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----