[pkg-squid-devel] Bug #768170 - dist upgrade issues in 3.4.8-2 and older

[Amos Jeffries]

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

Luigi, how would you like to proceed on this?

Amos

On 11/11/2014 11:29 a.m., Santiago Garcia Mantinan wrote:
>>> I've added a script update to git repository that drops the
>>> problem ACL definition on upgrades (and restores if aborted).
> 
> Just a couple of notes on this. You do the filtering even if this
> acl is not there, I think we could do a grep to see if an
> uncommented "acl manager" exists and only if it does, do the dirty
> work.
> 
> About the sed expresion...
> 
> sed -e 's/acl\ manager\ .*//'
> </etc/squid3/squid.conf.upgrade-backup >/etc/squid3/squid.conf
> 
> Does the work even if the line is commented, what I'd do is
> something like this:
> 
> sed -e "s/^\([ \t]*acl manager .*\)/# commented out on upgrade:
> \1/"
> 
> And last, about the extension of the file, there is .dpkg-old, for
> example right now on my server...
> 
> /etc/ca-certificates.conf.dpkg-old
> 
> Which is used by dpkg to store old config files, don't know if it
> would make sense to use that extension or how is that extension
> supposed to work, but maybe it makes sense to investigate that
> before adding some new extension.
> 
>> 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? Can we add a list of conflicting config
>> directives to NEWS.Debian? - your patch leaves the
>> squid.conf.upgrade-backup file in place even after successful
>> upgrade. Shall we remove it?
> 
> On the second note, the .dpkg-old files are left there on upgrades,
> I think our case is just the same, but I don't know if that is
> supposed to be created directly by dpkg or we can create them with
> a script, or maybe we should ask dpkg to do the job for us :-?
> 
>>> 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?
> 
> Well, I didn't want to bug it as RC just in case it was something
> wrong just with me :-)
> 
> Regards.
> 

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

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdaUlAAoJELJo5wb/XPRjTo0H/1TmY5IJLsX/YUsRzQHMHgBo
CwRqptiS2IQPgESa076Ir84wQBuwx2hckoDHX8ZyZBj+Z47ochRtlYDjVBQ6kIwW
P7GutItpBxeRUXY7lHaMu1MbeJ8s2neWxwKUTcq6kHFUtaw6wHLvdBlPAwdP0xjK
Y59cVkUbcsWveDAMSCcyBdY/t2id7iUMnKqHu5FaBt+HT/gDHNZcVeWrTNlUcjZ4
f4p3mNIyadVmyBgqld5PVfnpbvCb5mZokE3UQbSQCAp6ew7aIZi+rnxpu6AUTQQE
XrkJ6x9Y0qnvJHFyOxH0Zs9XaPUeyE7xwDZtxc7YCUzQTUyn4EZ8T2SYCfG1dWM=
=B44c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----