libbonobo2-0: Breaks evolution

[Debian Bug Importer]

Automatically imported from Debian bug report #255122 http://bugs.debian.org/255122

[Sebastien Bacher (seb128)]

Le ven, 18/06/2004 à 14:52 -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker a écrit :

> Reverting to libbonobo2-0=2.6.0-2 restores evolution to a working
> state.

Hi,

Have you restarted your computer, or at least run a "bonobo-slay" after
the libbonobo update ?

Cheers,

Sebastien Bacher

[Jwbaker-acm (jwbaker-acm)]

On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 15:22, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le ven, 18/06/2004 à 14:52 -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker a écrit :
>
> > Reverting to libbonobo2-0=2.6.0-2 restores evolution to a working
> > state.
>
> Hi,
>
> Have you restarted your computer, or at least run a "bonobo-slay" after
> the libbonobo update ?

No, and that does seem to fix it. However I would respectfully suggest
that intervention of this sophistication is unlikely to appeal to the
average Debian user.

Regards,
jwb

[Sebastien Bacher (seb128)]

Le ven, 18/06/2004 à 15:55 -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker a écrit :

> > Have you restarted your computer, or at least run a "bonobo-slay" after
> > the libbonobo update ?
>
> No, and that does seem to fix it.

Ok, so not really a bug, I would suggest to close it if it's ok for you.

> However I would respectfully suggest
> that intervention of this sophistication is unlikely to appeal to the
> average Debian user.

The problem is that we don't have solutions to do this in a much proper
way (that's why I'm suggestion to close it). We can't slay the whole
bonobo after the upgrade, it would close a lot of stuffs and that's
worst ...

What do you think ?

Thanks,

Sebastien Bacher

[Jwbaker-acm (jwbaker-acm)]

On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 16:29, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le ven, 18/06/2004 à 15:55 -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker a écrit :
>
> > > Have you restarted your computer, or at least run a "bonobo-slay" after
> > > the libbonobo update ?
> >
> > No, and that does seem to fix it.
>
> Ok, so not really a bug, I would suggest to close it if it's ok for you.

I agree.

> > However I would respectfully suggest
> > that intervention of this sophistication is unlikely to appeal to the
> > average Debian user.
>
> The problem is that we don't have solutions to do this in a much proper
> way (that's why I'm suggestion to close it). We can't slay the whole
> bonobo after the upgrade, it would close a lot of stuffs and that's
> worst ...
>
> What do you think ?

As the packager, you aren't really responsible for the architectural
defects of the software you are packaging. Maybe you should just make
it clear to the user. For example, when you upgrade glibc, you get a
warning about applications which use NSS and which therefore may not
survive the upgrade. You also get prompted to stop and restart the
affected applications. This might be a good solution for bonobo (and
gconfd) until the upstream comes up with a reasonable, functioning
system.

Regards,
jwb

[James D (freelsjd-comcast)]

I agree that the recent upgrade broke evolution.

I also agree that a reboot fixes the problem. A bonobo-slay is not
sufficient to fix the problem.

I recommend a note in the preconfiguration stage to the user that you
must reboot if evolution is installed on the system.

Is this a violation of Debian-Policy ? It sure reminds me of Microsoft
updates always needing a reboot !?!

--
James D. Freels, Ph.D.
<email address hidden>
<email address hidden>

[Sebastien Bacher (seb128)]

Le sam, 19/06/2004 à 11:02 -0400, James D. Freels a écrit :

> I recommend a note in the preconfiguration stage to the user that you
> must reboot if evolution is installed on the system.
>
> Is this a violation of Debian-Policy ? It sure reminds me of Microsoft
> updates always needing a reboot !?!

Why a policy violation ? You don't need to reboot, you can also remove
orbit stuff (in /tmp) and restart GNOME ...

Cheers,

Sebastien Bacher

[Adrian Bunk (bunk)]

severity 255122 grave
thanks

This issue "libbonobo2-0: Breaks evolution" should really be properly
fixed.

To be honest, I don't consider solutions like writing "reboot" or
"remove orbit stuff (in /tmp) and restart GNOME" in a note a proper
solution.

It can't be right that a new minor version of a library requires such
manual intervention For example, how should a restart of all GNOME and
Evolution/... instances work properly on big machines serving many thin
clients?

Debian is well-known for smooth upgrades, and Debian managed the
libc5 -> libc6 upgrade without requiring a reboot - why should such
small library upgrades require that much manual intervention of the
user?

cu
Adrian

--

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

[Sebastien Bacher (seb128)]

severity 255122 important
thanks

Le samedi 16 octobre 2004 à 19:19 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> This issue "libbonobo2-0: Breaks evolution" should really be properly
> fixed.

and bumping the severity will help to do this ?

"grave
        makes the package in question unusable or mostly so, or causes
        data loss, or introduces a security hole allowing access to the
        accounts of users who use the package."

There is some problem on major bonobo updates, that doesn't make the
package unusable, or compromise the data and the security.

> To be honest, I don't consider solutions l... in a note a proper
> solution.

Me neither.

> It can't be right that a new minor version of a library

it doesn't, apparently this happens with some major upgrades and that's
all.

> libc5 -> libc6 upgrade without requiring a reboot - why should such
> small library upgrades require that much manual intervention of the
> user?

It doesn't.

BTW if somebody manage to reproduce the problem, please try to send some
HUP signal to the bonobo servers (ps ax | grep bonobo to catch what's
running) and let me know if that helps.

Cheers,

Sebastien Bacher

[Adrian Bunk (bunk)]

On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 07:50:30PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> severity 255122 important
> thanks
>
> Le samedi 16 octobre 2004 à 19:19 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > This issue "libbonobo2-0: Breaks evolution" should really be properly
> > fixed.
>
> and bumping the severity will help to do this ?
>
> "grave
> makes the package in question unusable or mostly so, or causes
> data loss, or introduces a security hole allowing access to the
> accounts of users who use the package."
>
> There is some problem on major bonobo updates, that doesn't make the
> package unusable, or compromise the data and the security.
>...

In the past, Debian was well-known for smooth upgrades.

I'm quite surprised that such a problem after an upgrade is no longer
considered to be RC.

> Cheers,
>
> Sebastien Bacher

cu
Adrian

--

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Automatically imported from Debian bug report #255122 http://bugs.debian.org/255122

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-Id: <E1BbRHb-0004OG-00@heat>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:52:23 -0700
From: "Jeffrey W. Baker" <email address hidden>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <email address hidden>
Subject: libbonobo2-0: Breaks evolution

Package: libbonobo2-0
Version: 2.6.2-2
Severity: important
Tags: sid

The new libbonobo2-0 2.6.2-2 breaks evolution (1.4.6-3). At
startup, these errors are shown, and the mentioned components don't
work:

Cannot activate component OAFIID:GNOME_Evolution_Mail_ShellComponent :
The error from the activation system is:
Unknown CORBA exception id: 'IDL:omg.org/CORBA/INV_OBJREF:1.0'

Cannot activate component OAFIID:GNOME_Evolution_Addressbook_ShellComponent :
The error from the activation system is:
Unknown CORBA exception id: 'IDL:omg.org/CORBA/INV_OBJREF:1.0'

Cannot activate component OAFIID:GNOME_Evolution_Calendar_ShellComponent :
The error from the activation system is:
Unknown CORBA exception id: 'IDL:omg.org/CORBA/INV_OBJREF:1.0'

Cannot activate component OAFIID:GNOME_Evolution_Summary_ShellComponent :
The error from the activation system is:
Unknown CORBA exception id: 'IDL:omg.org/CORBA/INV_OBJREF:1.0'

Reverting to libbonobo2-0=2.6.0-2 restores evolution to a working
state.

-jwb

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.5
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C

Versions of packages libbonobo2-0 depends on:
ii libbonobo2-common 2.6.2-2 Bonobo CORBA interfaces library --
ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-10 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libglib2.0-0 2.4.1-2 The GLib library of C routines
ii liborbit2 1:2.10.2-1.1 libraries for ORBit2 - a CORBA ORB

-- no debconf information

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-Id: <1087597344.4138.5.camel@seb128>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:22:24 +0200
From: Sebastien Bacher <email address hidden>
To: "Jeffrey W. Baker" <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#255122: libbonobo2-0: Breaks evolution

Le ven, 18/06/2004 =E0 14:52 -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker a =E9crit :

> Reverting to libbonobo2-0=3D2.6.0-2 restores evolution to a working
> state.

Hi,

Have you restarted your computer, or at least run a "bonobo-slay" after
the libbonobo update ?

Cheers,

Sebastien Bacher

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-Id: <1087599307.21010.3.camel@heat>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:55:08 -0700
From: "Jeffrey W. Baker" <email address hidden>
To: Sebastien Bacher <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#255122: libbonobo2-0: Breaks evolution

On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 15:22, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le ven, 18/06/2004 =E0 14:52 -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker a =E9crit :
>=20
> > Reverting to libbonobo2-0=3D2.6.0-2 restores evolution to a working
> > state.
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> Have you restarted your computer, or at least run a "bonobo-slay" after
> the libbonobo update ?

No, and that does seem to fix it. However I would respectfully suggest
that intervention of this sophistication is unlikely to appeal to the
average Debian user.

Regards,
jwb

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-Id: <1087601391.4138.14.camel@seb128>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 01:29:51 +0200
From: Sebastien Bacher <email address hidden>
To: "Jeffrey W. Baker" <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#255122: libbonobo2-0: Breaks evolution

Le ven, 18/06/2004 =E0 15:55 -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker a =E9crit :

> > Have you restarted your computer, or at least run a "bonobo-slay" after
> > the libbonobo update ?
>=20
> No, and that does seem to fix it.=20

Ok, so not really a bug, I would suggest to close it if it's ok for you.

> However I would respectfully suggest
> that intervention of this sophistication is unlikely to appeal to the
> average Debian user.

The problem is that we don't have solutions to do this in a much proper
way (that's why I'm suggestion to close it). We can't slay the whole
bonobo after the upgrade, it would close a lot of stuffs and that's
worst ...

What do you think ?

Thanks,

Sebastien Bacher

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-Id: <1087601818.24435.2.camel@heat>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:36:58 -0700
From: "Jeffrey W. Baker" <email address hidden>
To: Sebastien Bacher <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#255122: libbonobo2-0: Breaks evolution

On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 16:29, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le ven, 18/06/2004 =E0 15:55 -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker a =E9crit :
>=20
> > > Have you restarted your computer, or at least run a "bonobo-slay" a=
fter
> > > the libbonobo update ?
> >=20
> > No, and that does seem to fix it.=20
>=20
> Ok, so not really a bug, I would suggest to close it if it's ok for you.

I agree.

> > However I would respectfully suggest
> > that intervention of this sophistication is unlikely to appeal to the
> > average Debian user.
>=20
> The problem is that we don't have solutions to do this in a much proper
> way (that's why I'm suggestion to close it). We can't slay the whole
> bonobo after the upgrade, it would close a lot of stuffs and that's
> worst ...
>=20
> What do you think ?

As the packager, you aren't really responsible for the architectural
defects of the software you are packaging. Maybe you should just make
it clear to the user. For example, when you upgrade glibc, you get a
warning about applications which use NSS and which therefore may not
survive the upgrade. You also get prompted to stop and restart the
affected applications. This might be a good solution for bonobo (and
gconfd) until the upstream comes up with a reasonable, functioning
system.

Regards,
jwb

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-Id: <email address hidden>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 11:02:31 -0400
From: "James D. Freels" <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: libbonobo2-0

I agree that the recent upgrade broke evolution.

I also agree that a reboot fixes the problem. A bonobo-slay is not
sufficient to fix the problem.

I recommend a note in the preconfiguration stage to the user that you
must reboot if evolution is installed on the system.

Is this a violation of Debian-Policy ? It sure reminds me of Microsoft
updates always needing a reboot !?!

--
James D. Freels, Ph.D.
<email address hidden>
<email address hidden>

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-Id: <1087659363.11268.1.camel@seb128>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:36:03 +0200
From: Sebastien Bacher <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#255122: libbonobo2-0

Le sam, 19/06/2004 =E0 11:02 -0400, James D. Freels a =E9crit :

> I recommend a note in the preconfiguration stage to the user that you
> must reboot if evolution is installed on the system. =20
>=20
> Is this a violation of Debian-Policy ? It sure reminds me of Microsoft
> updates always needing a reboot !?!

Why a policy violation ? You don't need to reboot, you can also remove
orbit stuff (in /tmp) and restart GNOME ...=20

Cheers,

Sebastien Bacher

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:19:33 +0200
From: Adrian Bunk <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>, Sebastien Bacher <email address hidden>,
 "James D. Freels" <email address hidden>
Subject: This issue should really be properly fixed

severity 255122 grave
thanks

This issue "libbonobo2-0: Breaks evolution" should really be properly
fixed.

To be honest, I don't consider solutions like writing "reboot" or
"remove orbit stuff (in /tmp) and restart GNOME" in a note a proper
solution.

It can't be right that a new minor version of a library requires such
manual intervention For example, how should a restart of all GNOME and
Evolution/... instances work properly on big machines serving many thin
clients?

Debian is well-known for smooth upgrades, and Debian managed the
libc5 -> libc6 upgrade without requiring a reboot - why should such
small library upgrades require that much manual intervention of the
user?

cu
Adrian

--

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

[Gustavo Noronha Silva (kov)]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:04:16 +0200
Adrian Bunk <email address hidden> wrote:

> In the past, Debian was well-known for smooth upgrades.
>
> I'm quite surprised that such a problem after an upgrade is no longer
> considered to be RC.

I happen to agree with Adrian here. The definition of 'grave' is really not
as important as our own judgement of something being or not a release
critical problem.

The question is really 'do we want to tell our users to restart GNOME after
upgrading?' Though while upgrading from woody to sarge this is probably
going to be a need, since woody still has GNOME1.4.

So maybe this is not release critical for this upgrade, anyway. We'll have
to make some tests of a GNOME1.4 -> GNOME2.6 upgrade with GNOME1.4 still
running.

Thanks,

--
<email address hidden>: Gustavo Noronha <http://people.debian.org/~kov>
Debian: <http://www.debian.org> * <http://www.debian-br.org>
  "Não deixe para amanhã, o WML que você pode traduzir hoje!"
        http://debian-br.alioth.debian.org/?id=WebWML

[Andreas Barth (aba)]

severity 255122 serious
thanks

* Sebastien Bacher (<email address hidden>) [041016 20:10]:
> Le samedi 16 octobre 2004 à 19:19 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > This issue "libbonobo2-0: Breaks evolution" should really be properly
> > fixed.

> and bumping the severity will help to do this ?

It will make sure that we won't release the package in this state.

> There is some problem on major bonobo updates, that doesn't make the
> package unusable, or compromise the data and the security.

You are right. The appropriate severity is serious.

> > It can't be right that a new minor version of a library

> it doesn't, apparently this happens with some major upgrades and that's
> all.

Sorry, but a working upgrade from stable is IMHO _required_. And in
difference to e.g. glibc this problem here breakes really another
application. And to tell the user to manually slay his programs, or to
reboot his box, is IMHO just plainly no solution. It's ok for debugging,
but not for a stable upgrade.

Cheers,
Andi
--
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

[LaMont Jones (lamont)]

These are not warty versions.

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-Id: <1097949030.6304.5.camel@localhost>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:50:30 +0200
From: Sebastien Bacher <email address hidden>
To: Adrian Bunk <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: This issue should really be properly fixed

severity 255122 important
thanks

Le samedi 16 octobre 2004 =E0 19:19 +0200, Adrian Bunk a =E9crit :
> This issue "libbonobo2-0: Breaks evolution" should really be properly=20
> fixed.

and bumping the severity will help to do this ?=20

"grave
        makes the package in question unusable or mostly so, or causes
        data loss, or introduces a security hole allowing access to the
        accounts of users who use the package."

There is some problem on major bonobo updates, that doesn't make the
package unusable, or compromise the data and the security.

> To be honest, I don't consider solutions l... in a note a proper=20
> solution.

Me neither.

> It can't be right that a new minor version of a library=20

it doesn't, apparently this happens with some major upgrades and that's
all.

> libc5 -> libc6 upgrade without requiring a reboot - why should such=20
> small library upgrades require that much manual intervention of the=20
> user?

It doesn't.

BTW if somebody manage to reproduce the problem, please try to send some
HUP signal to the bonobo servers (ps ax | grep bonobo to catch what's
running) and let me know if that helps.

Cheers,

Sebastien Bacher

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:04:16 +0200
From: Adrian Bunk <email address hidden>
To: Sebastien Bacher <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: This issue should really be properly fixed

On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 07:50:30PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> severity 255122 important
> thanks
>
> Le samedi 16 octobre 2004 �9:19 +0200, Adrian Bunk a �it :
> > This issue "libbonobo2-0: Breaks evolution" should really be properly
> > fixed.
>
> and bumping the severity will help to do this ?
>
> "grave
> makes the package in question unusable or mostly so, or causes
> data loss, or introduces a security hole allowing access to the
> accounts of users who use the package."
>
> There is some problem on major bonobo updates, that doesn't make the
> package unusable, or compromise the data and the security.
>...

In the past, Debian was well-known for smooth upgrades.

I'm quite surprised that such a problem after an upgrade is no longer
considered to be RC.

> Cheers,
>
> Sebastien Bacher

cu
Adrian

--

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:00:46 -0300
From: Gustavo Noronha Silva <email address hidden>
To: Adrian Bunk <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#255122: This issue should really be properly fixed

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:04:16 +0200
Adrian Bunk <email address hidden> wrote:

> In the past, Debian was well-known for smooth upgrades.
>=20
> I'm quite surprised that such a problem after an upgrade is no longer=20
> considered to be RC.

I happen to agree with Adrian here. The definition of 'grave' is really not
as important as our own judgement of something being or not a release
critical problem.

The question is really 'do we want to tell our users to restart GNOME after
upgrading?' Though while upgrading from woody to sarge this is probably
going to be a need, since woody still has GNOME1.4.

So maybe this is not release critical for this upgrade, anyway. We'll have
to make some tests of a GNOME1.4 -> GNOME2.6 upgrade with GNOME1.4 still
running.

Thanks,

--=20
<email address hidden>: Gustavo Noronha <http://people.debian.org/~kov>
Debian: <http://www.debian.org> * <http://www.debian-br.org>
  "N=E3o deixe para amanh=E3, o WML que voc=EA pode traduzir hoje!"
        http://debian-br.alioth.debian.org/?id=3DWebWML

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:19:01 +0200
From: Andreas Barth <email address hidden>
To: Sebastien Bacher <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Cc: Adrian Bunk <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#255122: This issue should really be properly fixed

severity 255122 serious
thanks

* Sebastien Bacher (<email address hidden>) [041016 20:10]:
> Le samedi 16 octobre 2004 =E0 19:19 +0200, Adrian Bunk a =E9crit :
> > This issue "libbonobo2-0: Breaks evolution" should really be properly=
=20
> > fixed.

> and bumping the severity will help to do this ?=20

It will make sure that we won't release the package in this state.

> There is some problem on major bonobo updates, that doesn't make the
> package unusable, or compromise the data and the security.

You are right. The appropriate severity is serious.

> > It can't be right that a new minor version of a library=20

> it doesn't, apparently this happens with some major upgrades and that's
> all.

Sorry, but a working upgrade from stable is IMHO _required_. And in
difference to e.g. glibc this problem here breakes really another
application. And to tell the user to manually slay his programs, or to
reboot his box, is IMHO just plainly no solution. It's ok for debugging,
but not for a stable upgrade.

Cheers,
Andi
--=20
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

[Sebastien Bacher (seb128)]

severity 255122 important
thanks

Le samedi 16 octobre 2004 à 21:19 +0200, Andreas Barth a écrit :
> severity 255122 serious
> thanks

please stop playing this game, we are going nowhere with such behaviour.

> It will make sure that we won't release the package in this state.

sorry but on what are you basing this decision ? We had few problems
during the 2.4 -> 2.6 upgrades.

I've made this change:

libbonobo (2.6.2-3) unstable; urgency=medium

  * GNOME Team Upload
  * debian/libbonobo2-0.postinst:
    + send a HUP signal to bonobo-activation-server after the
installation, that should solve the ORBIT errors with various apps after
the upgrade

No such bug report since then. This change has probably fixed the issue
even if I'm not sure. BTW nobody reported a problem with woody upgrade.

You want to be useful, try some woody -> sarge upgrade and let we know
how it goes. Did you even get this problem recently to make such a
mess ? Do you think than acting in this way of "I'll not let ..." will
help ?

> You are right. The appropriate severity is serious.

Sure that's appropriate for a bug reported a few time, in a special
situation, and which has apparently not occured for months now ...

> Sorry, but a working upgrade from stable is IMHO _required_.

Nobody reported a problem when upgrading from stable afaik. Could you
provide more details to start ? Did you make your upgrade from woody to
sarge ? Was evolution running ? Did you restart the application after
the upgrade ? What was exactly the errors ?

Thanks,

Sebastien Bacher

[Sebastien Bacher (seb128)]

Le samedi 16 octobre 2004 à 20:04 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :

> In the past, Debian was well-known for smooth upgrades.
>
> I'm quite surprised that such a problem after an upgrade is no longer
> considered to be RC.

What do you call "such problem" ? We had some 2.4->2.6 upgrade issue a
few months ago but nobody even talked about a woody->sarge upgrade
broken afaik.

Could you provide more details on the problem ?

Thanks,

Sebastien Bacher

[James D. Freels (freelsjd)]

Guys, this is not worth even a lunch-time discussion. How many Debian
users are going to wait years as we have for a major release of an
upgrade of stable and not reboot ? This is a ridiculous argument to say
the least. If it takes a reboot to fix this problem, so be it !

I think a far better thing to be working on for evolution is getting a
stable release of evolution-exchange such that we can all interface in a
stable and open-source manner with the folks from Redmond who don't yet
realize that the only way they are going to survive is to make all their
applications run with Linux natively (except the OS of course) !

On the other hand, perhaps a fix of this problem will also feed into a
fix of the evolution-exchange issues ?

--
James D. Freels, Ph.D.
<email address hidden>
<email address hidden>

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-Id: <1097964782.6304.25.camel@localhost>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:13:02 +0200
From: Sebastien Bacher <email address hidden>
To: Andreas Barth <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#255122: This issue should really be properly fixed

severity 255122 important
thanks

Le samedi 16 octobre 2004 =E0 21:19 +0200, Andreas Barth a =E9crit :
> severity 255122 serious
> thanks

please stop playing this game, we are going nowhere with such behaviour.

> It will make sure that we won't release the package in this state.

sorry but on what are you basing this decision ? We had few problems
during the 2.4 -> 2.6 upgrades.

I've made this change:

libbonobo (2.6.2-3) unstable; urgency=3Dmedium

  * GNOME Team Upload
  * debian/libbonobo2-0.postinst:
    + send a HUP signal to bonobo-activation-server after the
installation, that should solve the ORBIT errors with various apps after
the upgrade

No such bug report since then. This change has probably fixed the issue
even if I'm not sure. BTW nobody reported a problem with woody upgrade.

You want to be useful, try some woody -> sarge upgrade and let we know
how it goes. Did you even get this problem recently to make such a
mess ? Do you think than acting in this way of "I'll not let ..." will
help ?

> You are right. The appropriate severity is serious.

Sure that's appropriate for a bug reported a few time, in a special
situation, and which has apparently not occured for months now ...

> Sorry, but a working upgrade from stable is IMHO _required_.=20

Nobody reported a problem when upgrading from stable afaik. Could you
provide more details to start ? Did you make your upgrade from woody to
sarge ? Was evolution running ? Did you restart the application after
the upgrade ? What was exactly the errors ?

Thanks,

Sebastien Bacher

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-Id: <1097965430.6304.29.camel@localhost>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:23:50 +0200
From: Sebastien Bacher <email address hidden>
To: Adrian Bunk <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: This issue should really be properly fixed

Le samedi 16 octobre 2004 =E0 20:04 +0200, Adrian Bunk a =E9crit :

> In the past, Debian was well-known for smooth upgrades.
>=20
> I'm quite surprised that such a problem after an upgrade is no longer=20
> considered to be RC.

What do you call "such problem" ? We had some 2.4->2.6 upgrade issue a
few months ago but nobody even talked about a woody->sarge upgrade
broken afaik.

Could you provide more details on the problem ?

Thanks,

Sebastien Bacher=20

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-Id: <email address hidden>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:04:33 -0400
From: "Freels, James D." <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: get off the high horse

Guys, this is not worth even a lunch-time discussion. How many Debian
users are going to wait years as we have for a major release of an
upgrade of stable and not reboot ? This is a ridiculous argument to say
the least. If it takes a reboot to fix this problem, so be it !

I think a far better thing to be working on for evolution is getting a
stable release of evolution-exchange such that we can all interface in a
stable and open-source manner with the folks from Redmond who don't yet
realize that the only way they are going to survive is to make all their
applications run with Linux natively (except the OS of course) !

On the other hand, perhaps a fix of this problem will also feed into a
fix of the evolution-exchange issues ?

--
James D. Freels, Ph.D.
<email address hidden>
<email address hidden>

[Adrian Bunk (bunk)]

On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 12:23:50AM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le samedi 16 octobre 2004 à 20:04 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
>
> > In the past, Debian was well-known for smooth upgrades.
> >
> > I'm quite surprised that such a problem after an upgrade is no longer
> > considered to be RC.
>
> What do you call "such problem" ? We had some 2.4->2.6 upgrade issue a
> few months ago but nobody even talked about a woody->sarge upgrade
> broken afaik.
>...

It's an sarge -> sarge upgrade problem (due to the ancient age of Debian
stable, many people were forced to upgrade to unstable/testing).

Besides this, it might still be a future upgrade problem.
If your HUP already solves this issue, then sorry for the noise.

@James:
Regarding your repeated claim "If it takes a reboot to fix this
problem, so be it !":

No, I do not expect that any upgrade of Debian requires a reboot (except
when changing the kernel). Even the Debian 1.3 -> 2.0 upgrade which
included the libc5 -> libc6 transition worked without a reboot, and I'm
one of many Debian users who were very surprised if a reboot was
required.

> Thanks,
>
> Sebastien Bacher

cu
Adrian

--

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:22:20 +0200
From: Adrian Bunk <email address hidden>
To: Sebastien Bacher <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>, "Freels, James D." <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: This issue should really be properly fixed

On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 12:23:50AM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le samedi 16 octobre 2004 �0:04 +0200, Adrian Bunk a �it :
>
> > In the past, Debian was well-known for smooth upgrades.
> >
> > I'm quite surprised that such a problem after an upgrade is no longer
> > considered to be RC.
>
> What do you call "such problem" ? We had some 2.4->2.6 upgrade issue a
> few months ago but nobody even talked about a woody->sarge upgrade
> broken afaik.
>...

It's an sarge -> sarge upgrade problem (due to the ancient age of Debian
stable, many people were forced to upgrade to unstable/testing).

Besides this, it might still be a future upgrade problem.
If your HUP already solves this issue, then sorry for the noise.

@James:
Regarding your repeated claim "If it takes a reboot to fix this
problem, so be it !":

No, I do not expect that any upgrade of Debian requires a reboot (except
when changing the kernel). Even the Debian 1.3 -> 2.0 upgrade which
included the libc5 -> libc6 transition worked without a reboot, and I'm
one of many Debian users who were very surprised if a reboot was
required.

> Thanks,
>
> Sebastien Bacher

cu
Adrian

--

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

[Loïc Minier (lool)]

close 255122 2.6.2-3
thanks

        Hi,

 This is a followup for Debian bug <http://bugs.debian.org/255122>.

On ven, jun 18, 2004, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> The new libbonobo2-0 2.6.2-2 breaks evolution (1.4.6-3). At
> startup, these errors are shown, and the mentioned components don't
> work:

 I'm closing this old bug now.

    Bye,
--
Loïc Minier <email address hidden>
Come, your destiny awaits!

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 23:58:44 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lo=EFc?= Minier <email address hidden>
To: "Jeffrey W. Baker" <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: libbonobo2-0: Breaks evolution

close 255122 2.6.2-3
thanks

        Hi,

 This is a followup for Debian bug <http://bugs.debian.org/255122>.

On ven, jun 18, 2004, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> The new libbonobo2-0 2.6.2-2 breaks evolution (1.4.6-3). At
> startup, these errors are shown, and the mentioned components don't
> work:

 I'm closing this old bug now.

    Bye,
--=20
Lo=EFc Minier <email address hidden>
Come, your destiny awaits!