Debian Bug report logs - #32888
base: Removing "Obsolete" package base kills a system

Toggle useless messages

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

From: <kai@khms.westfalen.de>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: base: Removing "Obsolete" package base kills a system

Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 19:58:43 +0100

Package: base
Version: N/A
Severity: critical

I've said this for a long time. Now I've actually seen it happen.

When the old "base" package was replaced by "base-files" and friends, we
left a disaster waiting to happen: the old "base" package would remain,
containing those files not migrated to the newer packages. I have no
exact list, but it definitely includes *all* the basic devices.

Dselect will now list "base" as "Obsolete or local". This encourages
people to remove it.

If they remove base, they will lose most of their devices, rendering the
system practically unusable (and only fixable for experienced *nix people
if you realize what happens as long as you still have a root shell).

If you need more details how this actually happened, mail Jutta Wrage
<jw@witch.westfalen.de>.

Fix Proposal: have base-files or similar zero out /var/lib/dpkg/info/base.list.

-- System Information
Debian Release: 2.1
Kernel Version: Linux khms.westfalen.de 2.0.36 #2 Thu Dec 31 17:38:15 CET 1998 i486 unknown

Message #12 received at 32888@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

To: Jutta Wrage <jw@witch.westfalen.de>

Cc: kai@khms.westfalen.de, 32888@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#32888: Removing `base'

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 13:47:45 +0100 (CET)

Hello.

kai@khms.westfalen.de has reported that you had a problem when you removed
the "base" package. Since this package was supposed to be essential, I
wonder how you achieved it.

Did you remove this package by using dpkg's command line or by using
dselect?

If the former: Did you use --force-remove-essential?

If the latter: Do you remember what dselect [A]ccess method were you
using?

Thanks.

-- 
 "e258bb8989801259328f44ce4ea89fcb" (a truly random sig)

Message #17 received at 32888@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

To: control@bugs.debian.org

Cc: 32888@bugs.debian.org, Debian Developers <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Bug #32888: I think this is a bug in apt.

Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 14:40:30 +0100 (CET)

reassign 32888 apt
thanks

Just after asking the submitter about this, I have read some old mails
from debian-user. As per Message-ID: <E10HJzH-0000Fu-00@localhost> (sorry,
I didn't find the URL) I'm reassigning this bug to apt.

IMHO, it is not a bug that dpkg lets the user to remove an essential
package by using

dpkg --force-remove-essential --remove essentialpackage

It is a bug that the packaging system does it on behalf of the user
by asking a simple yes/no question (which is what apt seems to do).

In this case, at least, I would suggest apt to ask the question
in such way that "No" is the default answer.

Thanks.

-- 
 "7a1bd7a6b11aae73aa97f725aa1a21e0" (a truly random sig)

Message #26 received at 32888@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org>

To: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

Cc: 32888@bugs.debian.org, Debian Developers <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug #32888: I think this is a bug in apt.

Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 08:23:43 +1100

On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 02:40:30PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> IMHO, it is not a bug that dpkg lets the user to remove an essential
> package by using
> 
> dpkg --force-remove-essential --remove essentialpackage
> 
> It is a bug that the packaging system does it on behalf of the user
> by asking a simple yes/no question (which is what apt seems to do).
> 
> In this case, at least, I would suggest apt to ask the question
> in such way that "No" is the default answer.

dpkg should let you do it, but we should try to ensure that it does not
hose the system (eg by removing all of /dev). This package is a special case.


Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD              hamish@debian.org, hamish@rising.com.au
Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.   http://hamish.home.ml.org

Message #31 received at 32888@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: jw@witch.westfalen.de (Jutta Wrage)

To: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

Cc: kai@khms.westfalen.de, 32888@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#32888: Removing `base'

Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 21:45:47 GMT

In <Pine.LNX.3.96.990304133849.4362A-100000@cantor.unex.es> on Thu, 4
Mar 1999 13:47:45 +0100 (CET), you wrote:

>Since this package was supposed to be essential, I
>wonder how you achieved it.

Really simple: An ols system with many obsolete packages. :-)

>Did you remove this package by using dpkg's command line or by using
>dselect?

Dselect. There were too many packages to delete. So I examined the
situation. - and delted them.
Maybe I was a little too stressed after hours of reorganizing the
system. So I didn´t look into the file list only into available. And
all parts were included in newer packages. - And up and away... where
my ttys and other devices.
BTW: deselect was forced to use apt.

cu

Jutta

Message #38 received at 32888@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Enrique Zanardi <ezanardi@ull.es>

To: 32888@bugs.debian.org, Debian Developers <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug #32888: I think this is a bug in apt.

Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 00:02:25 +0000

On Fri, Mar 05, 1999 at 08:23:43AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 02:40:30PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > IMHO, it is not a bug that dpkg lets the user to remove an essential
> > package by using
> > 
> > dpkg --force-remove-essential --remove essentialpackage
> > 
> > It is a bug that the packaging system does it on behalf of the user
> > by asking a simple yes/no question (which is what apt seems to do).
> > 
> > In this case, at least, I would suggest apt to ask the question
> > in such way that "No" is the default answer.
> 
> dpkg should let you do it, but we should try to ensure that it does not
> hose the system (eg by removing all of /dev). This package is a special case.

But it's just too easy to miss a line in apt's output, hit <ENTER> and
remove a bunch of essential packages (think bash, libc6, ...) totally
hosing the system. I agree that apt should use "No" as the default answer
if it's going to remove essential packages.

(It's not that easy to type "dpkg --force-remove-essential ...").

--
Enrique Zanardi					   ezanardi@ull.es

Message #45 received at 32888@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

To: Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org>

Cc: 32888@bugs.debian.org, Debian Developers <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug #32888: I think this is a bug in apt.

Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:37:09 +0100 (CET)

On Fri, 5 Mar 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 02:40:30PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > IMHO, it is not a bug that dpkg lets the user to remove an essential
> > package by using
> > 
> > dpkg --force-remove-essential --remove essentialpackage
> > 
> > It is a bug that the packaging system does it on behalf of the user
> > by asking a simple yes/no question (which is what apt seems to do).
> > 
> > In this case, at least, I would suggest apt to ask the question
> > in such way that "No" is the default answer.
> 
> dpkg should let you do it [...]

No, dpkg does *not* let you do it:

# dpkg --remove gzip
dpkg: error processing gzip (--remove):
 This is an essential package - it should not be removed.
Errors were encountered while processing:
 gzip

If you think dpkg should let you to do it, submit a bug against
dpkg so that --force-remove-essential is on by default.

Thanks.

-- 
 "32b39ce3ad80a05cdbe0ca5bc15c042d" (a truly random sig)

Message #50 received at 32888@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org>

To: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

Cc: 32888@bugs.debian.org, Debian Developers <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug #32888: I think this is a bug in apt.

Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 21:43:57 +1100

On Fri, Mar 05, 1999 at 11:37:09AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Mar 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 02:40:30PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > IMHO, it is not a bug that dpkg lets the user to remove an essential
> > > package by using
> > > 
> > > dpkg --force-remove-essential --remove essentialpackage
> > 
> > dpkg should let you do it [...]
> 
> No, dpkg does *not* let you do it:
> 
> # dpkg --remove gzip
> dpkg: error processing gzip (--remove):
>  This is an essential package - it should not be removed.
> Errors were encountered while processing:
>  gzip
> 
> If you think dpkg should let you to do it, submit a bug against
> dpkg so that --force-remove-essential is on by default.

No, that's not what I meant at all. I meant that "dpkg 
--force-remove-essential" should remove the package as requested. However,
we should attempt to ensure that this does not hose the system. Although
we do warn the user that they should not use --force-remove-essential,
I think this is a special case.


Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD              hamish@debian.org, hamish@rising.com.au
Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.   http://hamish.home.ml.org

Message #55 received at 32888@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

To: Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org>

Cc: 32888@bugs.debian.org, Debian Developers <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug #32888: I think this is a bug in apt.

Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:19:05 +0100 (CET)

On Fri, 5 Mar 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 05, 1999 at 11:37:09AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > dpkg should let you do it [...]
> > 
> > No, dpkg does *not* let you do it:
> > 
> > # dpkg --remove gzip
> > dpkg: error processing gzip (--remove):
> >  This is an essential package - it should not be removed.
> > Errors were encountered while processing:
> >  gzip
> > 
> > If you think dpkg should let you to do it, submit a bug against
> > dpkg so that --force-remove-essential is on by default.
> 
> No, that's not what I meant at all. I meant that "dpkg 
> --force-remove-essential" should remove the package as requested. However,
> we should attempt to ensure that this does not hose the system. Although
> we do warn the user that they should not use --force-remove-essential,
> I think this is a special case.

I don't understand what you mean.

How can you ensure that removing an essential package (be it base or
gzip) does not hose the system? (It will certainly do, by definition of
essential).

Thanks.

-- 
 "26dfc401d0f55697093e4f0304d06ede" (a truly random sig)

Message #60 received at 32888@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org>

To: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

Cc: 32888@bugs.debian.org, Debian Developers <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug #32888: I think this is a bug in apt.

Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 00:20:02 +1100

On Fri, Mar 05, 1999 at 01:19:05PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> How can you ensure that removing an essential package (be it base or
> gzip) does not hose the system? (It will certainly do, by definition of
> essential).

I thought that we agreed to have one of the current packages edit
dpkg's database somehow so that removing base would not be so bad.


Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD              hamish@debian.org, hamish@rising.com.au
Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.   http://hamish.home.ml.org

Message #65 received at 32888@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

To: Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org>

Cc: 32888@bugs.debian.org, Debian Developers <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug #32888: I think this is a bug in apt.

Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 14:35:28 +0100 (CET)

On Sat, 6 Mar 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 05, 1999 at 01:19:05PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > How can you ensure that removing an essential package (be it base or
> > gzip) does not hose the system? (It will certainly do, by definition of
> > essential).

Sorry, I did not explain well:

Removing an essential package is always bad. Why should we allow the
user to remove "base" and not "gzip", for example? They are both
equally essential.

If APT lets the user to remove an essential package, people will
easily remove them by mistake, regardless of them being the old "base"
package or just another essential package.

I will reformulate the question: Why should APT make easy to remove
any essential package? (be it "base" or any other one).

> I thought that we agreed to have one of the current packages edit
> dpkg's database somehow so that removing base would not be so bad.

I think we have not agreed on that yet. In principle, dpkg's database
should not be edited directly.

However, even if we fixed this in base-files, how could we ensure that the
user does not try to remove "base" before base-files is upgraded?

It seems to me that the real danger is in APT, and it affects all
essential packages, not just "base".

APT is the one that lets you to remove an essential package.
Other dselect access methods do not.

Thanks.

-- 
 "c0e264f0717e122d1a3afb5ba9152b69" (a truly random sig)

Message #70 received at 32888@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org>

To: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

Cc: 32888@bugs.debian.org, Debian Developers <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug #32888: I think this is a bug in apt.

Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 09:34:29 +1100

On Fri, Mar 05, 1999 at 02:35:28PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Mar 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 1999 at 01:19:05PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > How can you ensure that removing an essential package (be it base or
> > > gzip) does not hose the system? (It will certainly do, by definition of
> > > essential).
> 
> Sorry, I did not explain well:
> 
> Removing an essential package is always bad. Why should we allow the
> user to remove "base" and not "gzip", for example? They are both
> equally essential.

It is bad, but they are not equally essential. You could (I think)
boot to single user mode without gzip, but you certainly could not
without base.

> I will reformulate the question: Why should APT make easy to remove
> any essential package? (be it "base" or any other one).

I agree, it should not.

> However, even if we fixed this in base-files, how could we ensure that the
> user does not try to remove "base" before base-files is upgraded?

All we can do is try our best to stop any more people being bitten by this.
Since "base" is quite old (rex or buzz), it should not affect many people
either way.


thanks,

Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD              hamish@debian.org, hamish@rising.com.au
Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.   http://hamish.home.ml.org

Message #77 received at 32888-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Raphael Hertzog <rhertzog@hrnet.fr>

To: 32888-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: base mess

Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 11:59:12 +0200

The base package doesn't exist any more for quite a long time, those first
time Debian user are most of them quite good and knows what to do to
correct this problem. Furthermore for those who can't, they simply have
to not remove the base package (which is guaranteed by its essential
flag)...  this bug deserves no more to be open.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog >> 0C4CABF1 >> http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~raphael/
<pub> CD Debian : http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~raphael/debian/#cd
      Formations Linux et logiciels libres : http://www.logidee.com </pub>

Message #82 received at 32888@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 32888@bugs.debian.org, rhertzog@hrnet.fr

Subject: Re: Bug#32888: marked as done (base: Removing "Obsolete" package base kills a system)

Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 21:39:09 +1000

On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 11:03:27AM -0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> The base package doesn't exist any more for quite a long time, those first
> time Debian user are most of them quite good and knows what to do to
> correct this problem. Furthermore for those who can't, they simply have
> to not remove the base package (which is guaranteed by its essential
> flag)...  this bug deserves no more to be open.

I think we are closing bugs for the sake of it here. Any reason
why the suggestion can't be implemented? (ie make base-files.postinst
truncate base.list). OK it's not a very nice solution but there isn't
a better one. I personally have nuked the base package and lost all
my devices this way.


Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>

Message #87 received at 32888@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Raphael Hertzog <rhertzog@hrnet.fr>

To: 32888@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#32888: marked as done (base: Removing "Obsolete" package base kills a system)

Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 14:53:30 +0200

Le Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 09:39:09PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt écrivait:
> I think we are closing bugs for the sake of it here. Any reason
> why the suggestion can't be implemented? (ie make base-files.postinst

Yes, because Santiago Vila doesn't want it and because it looks like
a crude hack. If you really think that it must be done, reopen the bug and
assign it to base-files... but it has no reason to exist against
the "general" package.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog >> 0C4CABF1 >> http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~raphael/
<pub> CD Debian : http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~raphael/debian/#cd
      Formations Linux et logiciels libres : http://www.logidee.com </pub>

Message #92 received at 32888@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ingo Saitz <Ingo.Saitz@stud.uni-hannover.de>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Cc: 32888@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#32888: marked as done (base: Removing "Obsolete" package base kills a system)

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 04:03:42 +0200

On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 09:39:09PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 11:03:27AM -0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > The base package doesn't exist any more for quite a long time, those first
> > time Debian user are most of them quite good and knows what to do to
> > correct this problem. Furthermore for those who can't, they simply have
> > to not remove the base package (which is guaranteed by its essential
> > flag)...  this bug deserves no more to be open.
> 
> I think we are closing bugs for the sake of it here. Any reason
> why the suggestion can't be implemented? (ie make base-files.postinst
> truncate base.list). OK it's not a very nice solution but there isn't
> a better one. I personally have nuked the base package and lost all
> my devices this way.

Sorry to step in, but there might be a better solution to the
problem. I think you can preserve files of an old package which
otherwise wold be removed.

The possible solution I see to this case is using dpkg-divert. If
base is still installed you should dpkg-divert every file in /dev
that used to be in that package to some other place. Example:

dpkg-divert --package base-files --divert-to /dev.base/hda /dev/hda

Then if you remove base, the devices would not get removed.

There however might be many files to divert and I don't know if
somebody really wants to do this. And as already mentioned this
package is quite old so only few people would using it. I won't
reopen this bug but I forward this information to the BTS.

Just my 2 cent.

    Ingo
--
Windows, me?

Message #97 received at 32888@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Nicolás Lichtmaier <nick@debian.org>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 32888@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#32888: marked as done (base: Removing "Obsolete" package base kills a system)

Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 23:14:06 -0300

> dpkg-divert --package base-files --divert-to /dev.base/hda /dev/hda

 Ugh.. ugly... 

 The clean solution is to truncate the file list of base, as proposed. This
will "release" all the files owned by that package safely, with no danger at
all.

Message #102 received at 32888@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

To: Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org>

Cc: Debian Developers <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, 32888@bugs.debian.org, control@bugs.debian.org, rhertzog@hrnet.fr

Subject: Re: Bug#32888: marked as done (base: Removing "Obsolete" package base kills a system)

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:15:50 +0200 (CEST)

reopen 32888
reassign 32888 base-files

On Sun, 26 Mar 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 11:03:27AM -0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > The base package doesn't exist any more for quite a long time, those first
> > time Debian user are most of them quite good and knows what to do to
> > correct this problem. Furthermore for those who can't, they simply have
> > to not remove the base package (which is guaranteed by its essential
> > flag)...  this bug deserves no more to be open.
> 
> I think we are closing bugs for the sake of it here. Any reason
> why the suggestion can't be implemented? (ie make base-files.postinst
> truncate base.list). OK it's not a very nice solution but there isn't
> a better one. I personally have nuked the base package and lost all
> my devices this way.

base-files will truncate base.list if it exists and will tell the user to
read README.base to remove this package safely (doing it automatically
would be an ugly hack).

Thanks.

-- 
 "1e14fb9158b36d0960a96eb7a4010223" (a truly random sig)

Message #117 received at 32888@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org>

To: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

Cc: Debian Developers <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>, 32888@bugs.debian.org, control@bugs.debian.org, rhertzog@hrnet.fr

Subject: Re: Bug#32888: marked as done (base: Removing "Obsolete" package base kills a system)

Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 00:27:27 +1000

On Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 11:15:50AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> base-files will truncate base.list if it exists and will tell the user to
> read README.base to remove this package safely (doing it automatically
> would be an ugly hack).

Thanks, that sounds like an excellent solution.


Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>

Message #122 received at 32888-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>

To: kai@khms.westfalen.de

Cc: 32888-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#32888: Removing `base'

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 11:10:45 +0200 (CEST)

Hello.

I have added code in base-files.postinst so that the file
/var/lib/dpkg/info/base.list is made a zero-length file if it exists.
Moreover, the user will be advised to read README.base in base-files doc
directory. This file contains a recipe to get rid of the old base package
in a safe way.

I think this is the only sensible way to deal with this "general" bug.

BTW: It is my opinion that dselect methods, if any, which allow the user
to remove essential packages are buggy and should be fixed also, but this
is not a general bug anymore.

Thanks.

-- 
 "02c1cd88206b41f77ad57a0303ac27ea" (a truly random sig)

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.