pkgbinarymangler .desktop mangling invalidates md5sums control files in the .deb

Bug #392149 reported by Steve Langasek
8
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
pkgbinarymangler (Ubuntu)
High
Martin Pitt
Karmic
High
Martin Pitt

Bug Description

Binary package hint: pkgbinarymangler

Running debsums on my system, I found that all desktop files in packages built in karmic have mismatched checksums. The cause appears to be pkgbinarymangler, which munges these files at the end of the build after dh_md5sums has already been called. pkgbinarymangler will need to update any md5sums entries for desktop files that it's modified.

Revision history for this message
Steve Langasek (vorlon) wrote :

should get fixed early in the karmic cycle, so that we don't have to do a rush of package rebuilds at the end.

Changed in pkgbinarymangler (Ubuntu Karmic):
assignee: nobody → Martin Pitt (pitti)
importance: Undecided → Medium
milestone: none → karmic-alpha-3
Martin Pitt (pitti)
Changed in pkgbinarymangler (Ubuntu Karmic):
importance: Medium → High
status: New → In Progress
Revision history for this message
Launchpad Janitor (janitor) wrote :

This bug was fixed in the package pkgbinarymangler - 60

---------------
pkgbinarymangler (60) karmic; urgency=low

  * pkgbinarymangler: Update package's md5sums list for modified .desktop
    files. (LP: #392149)

 -- Martin Pitt <email address hidden> Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:55:59 +0200

Changed in pkgbinarymangler (Ubuntu Karmic):
status: In Progress → Fix Released
Revision history for this message
Steve Beattie (sbeattie) wrote :

Unfortunately, this also affected jaunty:

  $ sudo debsums -a | egrep -c ".desktop *FAILED$"
  1497
  $ lsb_release -d
  Description: Ubuntu 9.04

But I don't know if it's worth fixing it.

Revision history for this message
Martin Pitt (pitti) wrote : Re: [Bug 392149] Re: pkgbinarymangler .desktop mangling invalidates md5sums control files in the .deb

Steve Beattie [2009-10-08 17:03 -0000]:
> But I don't know if it's worth fixing it.

I don't think so. It doesn't break the actual package functionality in
any way, and both the risk and the mirror/downloading/bandwidth costs
of a mass rebuild don't justify this minor bug IMHO.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers