Debian Bug report logs - #693676
"less -V" output change confuses xzless

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Display info messages

Message #5 received at [email protected] (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonathan Nieder <[email protected]>

To: [email protected]

Subject: "less -V" output change confuses xzless

Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 00:23:56 -0800

Package: less
Version: 451-1

Hi,

As explained at <http://bugs.debian.org/693537>, xzless depended on
the format of the first line of "less -V" output and the modern
version string "less 456 (GNU regular expressions)" confuses it.

That's entirely my fault and pretty broken behavior by xzless, but
it's possible xzless is not the only affected package.  I wonder:

 * is this effect of revealing bugs in scripts that parsed the version
   line intentional, and is it worth it?

 * would it make sense to add a

	Breaks: xz-utils (<< 5.1.1alpha+20120614-2+)

   to smooth the upgrade path?

 * any idea how one would go about finding other affected packages
   if they exist?

BTW, thanks for the pleasant and up-to-date "less" package that makes
it possible to notice this pretty early.

Sincerely,
Jonathan

Message #10 received at [email protected] (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <[email protected]>

To: Jonathan Nieder <[email protected]>, [email protected]

Cc: [email protected]

Subject: Re: Bug#693676: "less -V" output change confuses xzless

Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 08:54:39 +1100

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:23:56AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>Package: less
>Version: 451-1
>
>Hi,
>
>As explained at <http://bugs.debian.org/693537>, xzless depended on
>the format of the first line of "less -V" output and the modern
>version string "less 456 (GNU regular expressions)" confuses it.
>
>That's entirely my fault and pretty broken behavior by xzless, but
>it's possible xzless is not the only affected package.  I wonder:
>
> * is this effect of revealing bugs in scripts that parsed the version
>   line intentional, and is it worth it?

I'm not sure about that.

> * would it make sense to add a
>
>	Breaks: xz-utils (<< 5.1.1alpha+20120614-2+)
>
>   to smooth the upgrade path?

Sure. Please upload 5.1.1alpha+20120614-3 with the fix for #693537 so I
can test less 456-2.

sudo dpkg -i less_456-2_amd64.deb
dpkg: regarding less_456-2_amd64.deb containing less:
 less breaks xz-utils (<< 5.1.1alpha+20120614-2+)
  xz-utils (version 5.1.1alpha+20120614-2) is present and installed.

dpkg: error processing less_456-2_amd64.deb (--install):
 installing less would break xz-utils, and
 deconfiguration is not permitted (--auto-deconfigure might help)
Errors were encountered while processing:
 less_456-2_amd64.deb

> * any idea how one would go about finding other affected packages
>   if they exist?

I have no idea.

>BTW, thanks for the pleasant and up-to-date "less" package that makes
>it possible to notice this pretty early.

Thank you. :)

>Sincerely,
>Jonathan

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.