Debian Bug report logs - #22748
dpkg problem with chown/lchown with recent kernels in the alpha

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Carlos Carvalho <carlos@fisica.ufpr.br>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: dpkg problem with chown/lchown with recent kernels in the alpha

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:43:23 -0300

Package: dpkg
Version: 1.4.0.22.1

In the alpha, dpkg doesn't run well when trying to change owner/group
of symlinks. I'm told that this is due to the change in 2.1.x, x>80,
versions of the kernel. In this case dpkg must test for the kernel
version and behave accordingly.

I don't understand why the problem doesn't appear in x86.

Carlos

Message #10 received at 22748@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: jdassen@wi.leidenuniv.nl

To: carlos@fisica.ufpr.br, 22748@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#22748: dpkg problem with chown/lchown with recent kernels in the alpha

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 17:37:11 +0200

On Fri, May 22, 1998 at 11:43:23AM -0300, Carlos Carvalho wrote:
> Package: dpkg
> Version: 1.4.0.22.1
> 
> In the alpha, dpkg doesn't run well when trying to change owner/group of
> symlinks. I'm told that this is due to the change in 2.1.x, x>80, versions
> of the kernel. In this case dpkg must test for the kernel version and
> behave accordingly.

No. These kernels broke accepted filesystem semantics. It is not dpkg's job
to work around bugs in development kernels.

> I don't understand why the problem doesn't appear in x86.

It did appear in x86, and was subsequently fixed; people upgraded to newer
kernels; end of story. The 2.1.x series is now at 102 or so; if you have to
run a 2.1.x kernel, run one that isn't known to be broken.

I recommend the dpkg maintainer close this bug.

Ray
-- 
PATRIOTISM  A great British writer once said that if he had to choose 
between betraying his country and betraying a friend he hoped he would
have the decency to betray his country.                                      
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan 

Message #15 received at 22748@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: jdassen@wi.leidenuniv.nl

To: carlos@fisica.ufpr.br

Cc: 22748@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#22748: dpkg problem with chown/lchown with recent kernels in the alpha

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 18:41:59 +0200

On Fri, May 22, 1998 at 01:46:15PM -0300, Carlos Carvalho wrote:
> jdassen@wi.leidenuniv.nl (jdassen@wi.leidenuniv.nl) wrote on 22 May 1998 17:37:
>  >> In the alpha, dpkg doesn't run well when trying to change owner/group
>  >> of symlinks. I'm told that this is due to the change in 2.1.x, x>80,
>  >> versions of the kernel. In this case dpkg must test for the kernel
>  >> version and behave accordingly.
>  >
>  >No. These kernels broke accepted filesystem semantics. It is not dpkg's
>  >job to work around bugs in development kernels.
> 
> I don't like this behaviour either, it's against posix and less reasonable
> than before. However, it seems to be a "political" decision, not a bug.

I distinctly recall a number of reports about this (check debian-user or
-devel archives of a couple of months ago) that it was a bug and that it was
fixed in newer kernels. Perhaps the change was in an architecture-dependent
part of the kernel, and wasn't done for alpha?

>  >> I don't understand why the problem doesn't appear in x86.
>  >
>  >It did appear in x86, and was subsequently fixed; people upgraded to
>  >newer kernels; end of story. The 2.1.x series is now at 102 or so; if
>  >you have to run a 2.1.x kernel, run one that isn't known to be broken.
> 
> I'm running 102 and will upgrade to 103 as soon as I have time to
> compile it...

Please ask about this on linux-kernel. AFAIK, this is supposed to be a bug,
and is fixed on (at least) x86.

Ray
-- 
LEADERSHIP  A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with auto-
destructive imaginations in order to ensure that when it comes to the crunch 
it'll be someone else's bones which go crack and not their own.       
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan    

Message #20 received at 22748@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Carlos Carvalho <carlos@fisica.ufpr.br>

To: jdassen@wi.leidenuniv.nl

Cc: 22748@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#22748: dpkg problem with chown/lchown with recent kernels in the alpha

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 13:46:15 -0300 (EST)

jdassen@wi.leidenuniv.nl (jdassen@wi.leidenuniv.nl) wrote on 22 May 1998 17:37:
 >> In the alpha, dpkg doesn't run well when trying to change owner/group of
 >> symlinks. I'm told that this is due to the change in 2.1.x, x>80, versions
 >> of the kernel. In this case dpkg must test for the kernel version and
 >> behave accordingly.
 >
 >No. These kernels broke accepted filesystem semantics. It is not dpkg's job
 >to work around bugs in development kernels.

I don't like this behaviour either, it's against posix and less
reasonable than before. However, it seems to be a "political" decision,
not a bug. If this is the case, and dpkg being linux-specific, it
should comply.

I'd really much rather revert to the old behaviour though.

 >> I don't understand why the problem doesn't appear in x86.
 >
 >It did appear in x86, and was subsequently fixed; people upgraded to newer
 >kernels; end of story. The 2.1.x series is now at 102 or so; if you have to
 >run a 2.1.x kernel, run one that isn't known to be broken.

I'm running 102 and will upgrade to 103 as soon as I have time to
compile it...

Carlos

Message #25 received at 22748@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Carlos Carvalho <carlos@fisica.ufpr.br>

To: jdassen@wi.leidenuniv.nl

Cc: 22748@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#22748: dpkg problem with chown/lchown with recent kernels in the alpha

Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 14:21:04 -0300 (EST)

jdassen@wi.leidenuniv.nl (jdassen@wi.leidenuniv.nl) wrote on 22 May 1998 17:37:
 >No. These kernels broke accepted filesystem semantics. It is not dpkg's job
 >to work around bugs in development kernels.

I've just received this:

Robert Stone (talby@trap.mountain-view.ca.us) wrote on 22 May 1998 09:44:
 >	I looked up this topic in the O'Reilly POSIX Programmer's Guide
 >and found the POSIX filesystem does not support symbolic links.  I'm
 >curious about which Stevens book you're siteing here.
 >	Also, POSIX's failure to address symlinks leaves this up for
 >debate, but The Single UNIX Specification, Version 2 specifies that chown
 >affects the files pointed to by symlinks and defines an lchown call to
 >chown a symlink.  I believe this is the standard Linux is attempting to be
 >compliant with in this case.
 >	The Single UNIX Specification, Version 2 is accessable on the web
 >at http://www.rdg.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/toc.htm.

I checked this, and in the lchown() man page they clearly say that
chown() DOES follow symlinks, while lchown() changes the attributes of
the link itself. The chown() page doesn't say anything.

So it seems that the standards have changed, and linux is following
them... Which means that it's up to the applications to comply :-(
Therefore I propose this bug is not closed, but fixed. Ugh...

Carlos

Message #30 received at 22748@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: James Troup <J.J.Troup@scm.brad.ac.uk>

To: jdassen@wi.leidenuniv.nl

Cc: 22748@bugs.debian.org, carlos@fisica.ufpr.br

Subject: Re: Bug#22748: dpkg problem with chown/lchown with recent kernels in the alpha

Date: 22 May 1998 18:38:21 +0100

jdassen@wi.leidenuniv.nl writes:

> Please ask about this on linux-kernel. AFAIK, this is supposed to be
> a bug, and is fixed on (at least) x86.

And m68k.  I agree with Ray; this is very much a kernel bug and should
be fixed in the Alpha kernel not dpkg.

-- 
James
~Yawn And Walk North~

Message #39 received at 22748@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org>

To: bcollins@debian.org

Subject: reassigning fixed bugs for dpkg

Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 13:50:11 -0400

# These bugs are being reassigned to dpkg-iwj. What this means is that
# they have been fixed in the primary dpkg contained in the potato
# archive, but have not been merged upstream. Please take the time to
# assure that your bug was actually fixed, and reassign it back to dpkg if
# it was not.
#
# Thanks,
#   Ben

reassign 42239 dpkg-iwj
reassign 1921 dpkg-iwj
reassign 26431 dpkg-iwj
reassign 4801 dpkg-iwj
reassign 32637 dpkg-iwj
reassign 5536 dpkg-iwj
reassign 13730 dpkg-iwj
reassign 26432 dpkg-iwj
reassign 24309 dpkg-iwj
reassign 45739 dpkg-iwj
reassign 33086 dpkg-iwj
reassign 7128 dpkg-iwj
reassign 14663 dpkg-iwj
reassign 15017 dpkg-iwj
reassign 13929 dpkg-iwj
reassign 34642 dpkg-iwj
reassign 31784 dpkg-iwj
reassign 24472 dpkg-iwj
reassign 46808 dpkg-iwj
reassign 19038 dpkg-iwj
reassign 22351 dpkg-iwj
reassign 22748 dpkg-iwj
reassign 25653 dpkg-iwj
reassign 31256 dpkg-iwj
reassign 32031 dpkg-iwj
reassign 39420 dpkg-iwj
reassign 35117 dpkg-iwj
reassign 33347 dpkg-iwj
reassign 37810 dpkg-iwj

# misc. cleanups
severity 33344 wishlist
merge 30126 33263
close 44654

stop

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.