Re: [Piuparts-devel] Unclear failure for asclock (left over files in /var)

[Holger Levsen]

[resent, added cc: to debian-policy@, feedback welcome on how piuparts should
treat certain left over files after purging a package..]

Hi Helge,

thank you for bringing up this issue here.

On Mittwoch, 25. November 2009, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> Package purging left files on system:
> /var/cache/man/pt not owned
> /var/cache/man/pt/cat1 not owned
[...]
> Judging from this analyis, this looks like a false positive...

I think it is too, but I'm not entirely sure, so I would appreciate a comment
from someone more familar with "man" then I am, that's why I've added d-qa@
to cc:

So far, piuparts has been ignoring left over files with the following
patterns:

"/var/cache/man/(.*)/index.db",
"/var/cache/man/index.db",

(obviously, there are more :)

Looking at the failed piuparts logs, I see there are more with left over files
in /var/cache/man/.*/cat? - should piuparts just ignore /var/cache/man?
Comments welcome.

regards,
Holger

[Guillem Jover]

Hi!

[ CCing man-db as Colin is probably the best person to get feedback
from on this. ]

On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 10:22:40 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 25. November 2009, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> > Package purging left files on system:
> > /var/cache/man/pt not owned
> > /var/cache/man/pt/cat1 not owned
> [...]
> > Judging from this analyis, this looks like a false positive...
>
> I think it is too, but I'm not entirely sure, so I would appreciate a comment
> from someone more familar with "man" then I am, that's why I've added d-qa@
> to cc:
>
> So far, piuparts has been ignoring left over files with the following
> patterns:
>
> "/var/cache/man/(.*)/index.db",
> "/var/cache/man/index.db",
>
> (obviously, there are more :)
>
> Looking at the failed piuparts logs, I see there are more with left over files
> in /var/cache/man/.*/cat? - should piuparts just ignore /var/cache/man?
> Comments welcome.

Ignoring /var/cache/man/ seems the most reasonable course of action to
me. The man-db package is the one handling those databases, it just
seems logical to me that it should be the one in charge of removing it
when purged.

regards,
guillem

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-q...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

[Colin Watson]

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:04:30PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 10:22:40 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Mittwoch, 25. November 2009, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> > > Package purging left files on system:
> > > /var/cache/man/pt not owned
> > > /var/cache/man/pt/cat1 not owned
> > [...]
> > > Judging from this analyis, this looks like a false positive...
> >
> > I think it is too, but I'm not entirely sure, so I would appreciate a comment
> > from someone more familar with "man" then I am, that's why I've added d-qa@
> > to cc:
> >
> > So far, piuparts has been ignoring left over files with the following
> > patterns:
> >
> > "/var/cache/man/(.*)/index.db",
> > "/var/cache/man/index.db",
> >
> > (obviously, there are more :)
> >
> > Looking at the failed piuparts logs, I see there are more with left over files
> > in /var/cache/man/.*/cat? - should piuparts just ignore /var/cache/man?
> > Comments welcome.
>
> Ignoring /var/cache/man/ seems the most reasonable course of action to
> me. The man-db package is the one handling those databases, it just
> seems logical to me that it should be the one in charge of removing it
> when purged.

It makes sense for mandb to observe that a hierarchy of manual pages has
gone away entirely (e.g. no more /usr/share/man/pt) and remove the
corresponding database. Could somebody file a bug on man-db for this, or
reassign/clone an existing bug? I wasn't sure if there was already a bug
report for this so I haven't filed one myself.

Ignoring /var/cache/man seems fairly harmless in the meantime.

(man-db of course does remove /var/cache/man when it itself is purged,
but we could perhaps do better.)

--
Colin Watson [cjwa...@debian.org]

[Holger Levsen]

Hi Guillem, Collin,

On Sonntag, 29. November 2009, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Ignoring /var/cache/man/ seems the most reasonable course of action to
> > me. The man-db package is the one handling those databases, it just
> > seems logical to me that it should be the one in charge of removing it
> > when purged.
>
> It makes sense for mandb to observe that a hierarchy of manual pages has
> gone away entirely (e.g. no more /usr/share/man/pt) and remove the
> corresponding database. Could somebody file a bug on man-db for this, or
> reassign/clone an existing bug? I wasn't sure if there was already a bug
> report for this so I haven't filed one myself.
>
> Ignoring /var/cache/man seems fairly harmless in the meantime.

Thanks for your feedback, I'll make piuparts ignore /var/cache/man now.

cheers,
Holger

[Holger Levsen]

package: man-db
x-debbugs-cc: debi...@lists.debian.org>, debian...@lists.debian.org

On Sonntag, 29. November 2009, Colin Watson wrote:

> It makes sense for mandb to observe that a hierarchy of manual pages has
> gone away entirely (e.g. no more /usr/share/man/pt) and remove the
> corresponding database. Could somebody file a bug on man-db for this, or
> reassign/clone an existing bug?

cheers & thanks,
Holger