sarge upgrade issue. perl 5.6->5.8 and libdb4

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

sarge upgrade issue. perl 5.6->5.8 and libdb4

Jeremy Nickurak
I just ran through a woody-sarge update, and (temporarilly) lost a
number of perl databases that an unpackaged app had created. Took me
quite a while to figure out exactly what happened, more time than a user
should normally be expected to put into debugging I think.

Woody's perl 5.6 uses libdb2. Sarge's uses libdb4. libdb4 cannot
natively open databases created with libdb2, and while this point is
stated in perl's changelog, I don't believe most users will read all 20
pages of changelog entries that have occured since then, and there
appeared to be no notification in the process of the upgrade that such
an issue would take place.

There is an upgrade script available, but afaict it's only reference is
buried deep in that changelog.

Sounds like a perfect place to use a NEWS.gz file and apt-listchanges,
if there's a way to enforce the installation of apt-listchanges.

Comments?

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: sarge upgrade issue. perl 5.6->5.8 and libdb4

Javier Fernandez-Sanguino-2
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 06:16:40PM -0600, Jeremy Nickurak wrote:
> I just ran through a woody-sarge update, and (temporarilly) lost a
> number of perl databases that an unpackaged app had created. Took me
> quite a while to figure out exactly what happened, more time than a user
> should normally be expected to put into debugging I think.
(....)
> Sounds like a perfect place to use a NEWS.gz file and apt-listchanges,
> if there's a way to enforce the installation of apt-listchanges.
>
> Comments?

Maybe it's best if you provided a patch to the Release Notes, we might need
to draft a section on "known upgrade issues" (was there in previous
versions of the RN) and add that info (and other similar stuff) there.

Regards

Javier

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: sarge upgrade issue. perl 5.6->5.8 and libdb4

Jeremy Nickurak
On mer, 2005-05-25 at 21:52 +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> Maybe it's best if you provided a patch to the Release Notes, we might need
> to draft a section on "known upgrade issues" (was there in previous
> versions of the RN) and add that info (and other similar stuff) there.

I should probabbly point out that I am not a debian developer, nor do I
really have any clue where to go with this. Just wanted to make sure
somebody more involved in the process than me was involved in the
process.

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: sarge upgrade issue. perl 5.6->5.8 and libdb4

Javier Fernandez-Sanguino-2
On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 02:17:25PM -0600, Jeremy Nickurak wrote:
> On mer, 2005-05-25 at 21:52 +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> > Maybe it's best if you provided a patch to the Release Notes, we might need
> > to draft a section on "known upgrade issues" (was there in previous
> > versions of the RN) and add that info (and other similar stuff) there.
>
> I should probabbly point out that I am not a debian developer, nor do I
> really have any clue where to go with this. Just wanted to make sure
> somebody more involved in the process than me was involved in the
> process.

No need to be a DD to provide a patch to the document. Just write the issue
down as well as the steps that need to be taken to solve it and submit it
to the debian-doc mailing list. If you go all the way and take the release
note SGML sources and provide a patch (diff -u prefered) with the changes
included then that would be best.

If you think that's too much maybe you would like to detail the steps you
took to fix this issue, more specifically:

- which databases did you had in db2 format?
- what did you do to convert these databases?
- how did you verify that the database integrity was preserved in the
upgrade?

The Release team would be grateful if you submitted this (if you haven't
done it already) to the upgrade-reports virtual package in the BTS as a bug
report.

Thanks

Javier

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment