Package: grub-efi-amd64-signed
Version: 1+2.12+1
Severity: serious
X-Debbugs-Cc: sweetyfish@deepin.org

Hi,

grub-efi-amd64-signed seems uninstallable now in sid. This might caused
by a binNMU in src:grub2.

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
grub-efi-amd64-signed : Depends: grub-common (= 2.12-1) but it is not going to be installed

$ apt policy grub-common
grub-common:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: 2.12-1+b1
Version table:
2.12-1+b1 500
500 http://mirrors.cernet.edu.cn/debian sid/main amd64 Packages

Please upload a new version so grub-efi-amd64-signed can be installable. Thanks!

Best regards,
Tianyu Chen @ deepin

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format...

Your message dated Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:46:02 +0100
with message-id <3273ygj257xizbfg5pfic7t7xonjfyuvdznnodr55kqfpxo442@ou5u7i3txdfl>
and subject line Re: Bug#1067486: Depends: grub-common (= 2.12-1) but it is not going to be installed
has caused the Debian Bug report #1067486,
regarding Depends: grub-common (= 2.12-1) but it is not going to be installed to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


--
1067486: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1067486
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems

Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 22 Mar 2024 10:27:01 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(2021-04-09) on buxtehude.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.9 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,
BODY_INCLUDES_PACKAGE,HAS_PACKAGE,MDO_DATING10,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,WWWCN,XMAILER_REPORTBUG
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
version=3.4.6-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.0000 Tokens: new, 36; hammy, 119; neutral, 30; spammy,
1. spammytokens:0.999-+--UD:cn hammytokens:0.000-+--XDebbugsCc,
0.000-+--X-Debbugs-Cc, 0.000-+--H*M:reportbug, 0.000-+--H*MI:reportbug,
0.000-+--H*x:12.0.0
Return-path: <sweetyfish@deepin.org>
Received: from bg5.exmail.qq.com ([43.154.209.5]:64939)
by buxtehude.debian.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_SECP256R1__RSA_SHA5

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:46:02 +0100 Julian Andres Klode <julian.klode@canonical.com> wrote:

Version: 1+2.12+1+b1

(this should be the right version when it gets accepted)

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 06:23:06PM +0800, Tianyu Chen wrote:

Package: grub-efi-amd64-signed
Version: 1+2.12+1
Severity: serious
X-Debbugs-Cc: sweetyfish@deepin.org

Hi,

grub-efi-amd64-signed seems uninstallable now in sid. This might caused
by a binNMU in src:grub2.

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
grub-efi-amd64-signed : Depends: grub-common (= 2.12-1) but it is not going to be installed

$ apt policy grub-common
grub-common:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: 2.12-1+b1
Version table:
2.12-1+b1 500
500 http://mirrors.cernet.edu.cn/debian sid/main amd64 Packages

Please upload a new version so grub-efi-amd64-signed can be installable. Thanks!

I'm getting a bit tired of this. This is normal, the packages are automatically generated but need to be approved by ftpteam.

And people are probably understandably hesitant to accept them because future binNMUs are expected.

So Please do not file bugs for them, it is out of our hands.

--
debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev
ubuntu core developer i speak de, en

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

reopen 1067486
reassign 1067486 apt
severity 1067486 normal
thanks

Am Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 11:46:02PM +0100 schrieb Julian Andres Klode:

Please upload a new version so grub-efi-amd64-signed can be installable. Thanks!

I'm getting a bit tired of this. This is normal, the packages are automatically generated but need to be approved by ftpteam.

This might be a normal condition but a) this is not transparent to user,
and b) it really does break apt's operation, at least partly.

For a) maybe we should make this somehow auto-checked remotely and shown
in reportbug? Or would you have a better idea?

And for b) all "dist-upgrade" or "full-upgrade" failed suddenly. Yes,
failing, user getting completely locked out. And "upgrade" operation
installed just a fraction of the potential candidates (there were more
reasons for that but the lack of dist-upgrade feature is still PITA).
And the reason has not been obvious, and even debugging with -oDebug::pkgProblemResolver=true is NO FUN on bigger upgrades.

And the eventual solution was close examination, and some
guessing/observing that apt is confused and jumps between amd64 and
i386, and then some FORCE magic, i.e.

dpkg --remove --force-depends grub-common:i386

(don't ask me how this package got installed before, that system
installation has been migrated a lot). Another candidate was an old iproute:i386 package which I also had to remove.

Best regards,
Eduard.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Processing control commands:

severity -1 serious

Bug #1067486 {Done: Julian Andres Klode <jak@debian.org>} [grub-efi-amd64-signed] Depends: grub-common (= 2.12-1) but it is not going to be installed
Severity set to 'serious' from 'normal'

reopen -1

Bug #1067486 {Done: Julian Andres Klode <jak@debian.org>} [grub-efi-amd64-signed] Depends: grub-common (= 2.12-1) but it is not going to be installed
'reopen' may be inappropriate when a bug has been closed with a version;
all fixed versions will be cleared, and you may need to re-add them.
Bug reopened
No longer marked as fixed in versions 1+2.12+1+b1.

--
1067486: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1067486
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi

I uploaded this non change NMU to DELAYED/2.

Regards,
Bastian

--
There is an order of things in this universe.
-- Apollo, "Who Mourns for Adonais?" stardate 3468.1

diff -Nru grub2-2.12/debian/changelog grub2-2.12/debian/changelog
--- grub2-2.12/debian/changelog 2024-01-15 10:54:55.000000000 +0100
+++ grub2-2.12/debian/changelog 2024-04-01 10:20:09.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+grub2 (2.12-1.1) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+ * Non-maintainer upload.
+ * No change rebuild. (closes: #1067486)
+
+ -- Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> Mon, 01 Apr 2024 10:20:09 +0200
+
grub2 (2.12-1) unstable; urgency=medium

[ Mate Kukri ]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi

binNMU are known to not work on the signing side of the archive.

dpkg contains special handling for binNMU style versions. If it sees a
1-1+b1 as version, it will search some source files with version 1-1.
This means you can never properly have a source package with such a
version.

As the signing stuff just munges packages together and then calls
dpkg stuff on it, the resulting files will show up in the wrong location
and the whole thing errors out.

The internal state tells that signing failed and will not be retried:

| id | 4958
| ts | 2024-03-28 12:50:25.021108
| template_package_name | grub-efi-amd64-signed-template
| template_package_version | 2.12-1+b1
| state | failed
| error_msg | Command '['dpkg-genchanges', '-S', '-DDistribution=sid', '-UCloses', '-O../grub-efi-amd64-signed_1+2.12+1+b1_source.changes']' returned non-zero exit status 255.
| suite_codename | sid
| architecture | amd64

Bastian

--
"Get back to your stations!"
"We're beaming down to the planet, sir."
-- Kirk and Mr. Leslie, "This Side of Paradise",
stardate 3417.3

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)