Bug#992693: bullseye-pu: package glibc/2.31-13+deb11u1
On Mon, 2021-09-27 at 12:38 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Control: tags -1 + confirmed d-i
>
To confirm some IRC conversations - given the closeness of the freeze
for 11.1, please feel free to upload and kibi can review the package
from stable-new.
Regards,
Adam
> Control: fixed 994042 2.32-3
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 2021-09-26 at 22:16 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2021-09-26 20:46, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2021-09-21 at 23:47 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > In the meantime another issue that would need to be fixed in
> > > > sid
> > > > > > came
> > > > as
> > > > bug#994042.
> > > >
> > > > This time the issue is in the preinst. To summarize, in the
> > > > case
> > > > debconf is not usable to prompt the user about the upgrade, the
> > > > preinst switches to text prompt. However as the debconf module
> > > > has
> > > > been loaded got control of the tty, which prevent any input
> > > > from
> > > > the
> > > > user. For skilled users it still possible to kill the upgrade
> > > > from
> > > > another, but other users will probably try other actions that
> > > > might
> > > > have damaging effects (like rebooting the system).
> > > >
> > > > The fix is to get the debconf configuration without using the
> > > > debconf
> > > > module, as suggested by Colin Watson.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks. That looks OK to me, particularly with Colin's review.
> >
> > Thanks for the review. I guess that now it just needs a kibi-ack.
>
> Yep; re-tagging accordingly.
>
> > > Is there an ETA for getting the fix into unstable?
> >
> > Upgrades from buster to bookworm are not supported, so it means
> > upgrade
> > to bookworm starts from bullseye, which has a fixed debconf (the
> > issue
> > has been fixed in version 1.5.76). Therefore the fix in unstable
> > has
> > been done in glibc 2.32-3 by just dropping all the workaround:
> >
> > https://salsa.debian.org/glibc-team/glibc/-/commit/66359576b1aa793ae6c79618b188738287cf8789
>
> Aha, thanks for connecting the dots. I was misled / confused slightly
> by the lack of fixed versions on #994042, where the version tracking
> implies that unstable is still affected, and
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994042;msg=33 not
> indicating which branch the fix was on (I realise I {c,sh}ould have
> checked). I've added a fixed version based on your explanation above;
> hopefully that makes the status clearer.
>
> Regards,
>
> Adam
>
>
Reply to: