Is there a good solution for this: release-upgrade with dependency moved to universe

Steve Langasek steve.langasek at ubuntu.com
Tue Jan 16 06:01:36 UTC 2024


On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 11:05:24AM -0500, Nick Rosbrook wrote:
> Hi,

> > I guess something in do-release-upgrade could be run to, when encountering such a situation, automatically select bin:samba-vfs-modules-extra for the upgrade as well? Is it worth it? Is there a precedence for something like this? And how would this be done in a more generic/general case, if at all?

> We have the concept of "quirks"[1] in ubuntu-release-upgrader which
> allows us to handle special cases like this. For example, a cycle or
> two ago when flatpak was removed from flavor seeds, we added some code
> to not auto-remove flatpak if it appeared the user was actively using
> it. So yes, if nothing else we could add a quirk to make sure
> samba-vfs-modules-extra is installed upgrades if samba-vfs-modules is
> currently installed.

I want to weigh in here to say that I think we should NOT do this by
default.

In my view, every difference between "Install Ubuntu release X; upgrade to
Ubuntu release X+1" and "Install Ubuntu release X+1" is a bug.

These bugs vary in severity, and we'll probably never zero out the list of
such bugs.  But we should not knowingly *introduce* such bugs through
quirking.

This should also apply to "Install Ubuntu release X; apt install Y; upgrade
to Ubuntu release X+1", when not modifying any configuration files along the
way (though the severity of such a bug should also understandably be lower).

If it's possible to detect that the system in question is *using* glusterfs,
and add a quirk at runtime to install samba-vfs-modules-extra, then I think
this sort of change is ok.  Otherwise, I think the right answer here is:
behavior changes on upgrade between releases, and the release upgrade is the
time for the user to discover this is the case and deal with it (as part of
a maintenance window).

Otherwise, you're really just shifting the pain.  Ubuntu X went EOL, I have
to reinstall, I install Ubuntu X+1 which is what I had installed before, why
are things behaving differently?!

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                   https://www.debian.org/
slangasek at ubuntu.com                                     vorlon at debian.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20240115/9fc04b19/attachment.sig>


More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list