Dear Maintainer, hi NMUers,

To test crossgrader I installed a standard Xfce Desktop system of
Debian bookworm i386/i686 and used crossgrader following the
"official" documentation:


https://salsa.debian.org/crossgrading-team/debian-crossgrading/-/blob/master/INSTRUCTIONS.md


But during the second stage I got the following error regarding
the package tumbler:

    Unpacking tumbler:amd64 (4.18.0-1) ...
    dpkg: error processing archive
/var/cache/apt/archives/tumbler_4.18.0-1_amd64.deb (--install):
    trying to overwrite shared '/usr/lib/systemd/user/tumblerd.service',
which is different from
    other instances of package tumbler:amd64


To work around this I used the following command:

    dpkg -i --force-overwrite
/var/cache/apt/archives/tumbler_4.18.0-1_amd64.deb


This worked but an `apt install --fix-missing' wanted to remove
many packages. I executed the command anyway and installed the
removed packages after. It worked.

Please let me know if you have any questions!

Thanks, Magnus

Hi Magnus,

It's a bug in tumbler as it declares to be coinstallable but actually is
not. Dropping "Multi-Arch: same" from tumbler is the simplest way of
resolving this. The problem is also reported by the multiarch hinter on
tracker.d.o and exists in both bookworm and sid.

Helmut

Hi Helmut,

[...]
And yes, I found the multiarch issue here:
https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/tumbler

Kind regards, Magnus

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
tumbler, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.

A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 1083022@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@debian.org> (supplier of updated tumbler package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org)
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 08:24:19 +0200
Source: tumbler
Architecture: source
Version: 4.18.2-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Xfce Maintainers <debian-xfce@lists.debian.org>
Changed-By: Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@debian.org>
Closes: 1083022
Changes:
 tumbler (4.18.2-1) unstable; urgency=medium
 .
   [ Yves-Alexis Perez ]
   * d/gbp.conf: track 4.18 branch
 .
   [ Yves-Alexis Perez ]
   * New upstream version 4.18.2
   * d/control: unmark tumbler as m-a: same (Closes: #1083022)
   * d/libtumbler-1-0t64.symbols updated for new release
   * d/control: update b-dep pkg-config -> pkgconf
Checksums-Sha1:
 fb72db63acd368173b4ad386de72e4a5025d1115 2213 tumbler_4.18.2-1.dsc
 84c2f319f4aa417df9d94f1229fa74b16ffba214 619513 tumbler_4.18.2.orig.tar.bz2
 cac3ec03f8937aa54f6ac6b89e49e68d4faab3ab 6760 tumbler_4.18.2-1.debian.tar.xz
 4958dbd4e6a1aa67ac9b21a913d95e28179fce20 25568 tumbler_4.18.2-1_amd64.buildinfo
Checksums-Sha256:
 b5b054e90a18fad58d9632e7e48cfeb6702042088c9d831b2fa68f9c56135ff1 2213 tumbler_4.18.2-1.dsc
 b530eec635eac7f898c0d8d3a3ff79d76a145d3bed3e786d54b1ec058132be7a 619513 tumbler_4.18.2.orig.tar.bz2
 95822ab01fe9d9ccb760e4627f13c2bdf13046f62d2f4729d1f6e56503bbfeb6 6760 tumbler_4.18.2-1.debian.tar.xz
 a5d352119598ec0adde361cd00a95b1f65a6fc9fe07cb715e83b6ad6139abd44 25568 tumbler_4.18.2-1_amd64.buildinfo
Files:
 ef59c530e10f2b0ab0d542a9e06c02de 2213 xfce optional tumbler_4.18.2-1.dsc
 576ff73eb77530b001e36d565544a7f6 619513 xfce optional tumbler_4.18.2.orig.tar.bz2
 989d2b0c4f695accd6bae55055af6164 6760 xfce optional tumbler_4.18.2-1.debian.tar.xz
 5e7ae40ea4b24d2a5662e8899e006647 25568 xfce optional tumbler_4.18.2-1_amd64.buildinfo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEE8vi34Qgfo83x35gF3rYcyPpXRFsFAmcI6bkACgkQ3rYcyPpX
RFvA2gf/f9YKwsLzzV04JTNj2V2+4J/kIeLlvTcIRqdBtwG3tsl63XOqSVABqSye
NaNUC1DSNStoTw1aXNxihdIYMaXo+cG1eTC80z+dPeY0o5XGCycUNb3WhfNews+b
fM3rL7Macvw8oVy88UTo+ZWcnmNuTwZivZtn8zCZ3CJeXk6XJlT3MC5W7tMI7kFH
RFTetE2C8ginMMqvbP/W6zdwjph7lXIrnmUOre/ZC64FmEueD6wB85SFWpmV1sM8
JznV17dbX8dp9s4JtXQfGRvYj/swlNEhVCWVDq2O58f3QPcJmfEsNY4CuRG1oiSQ
Bsq6NXGjYjyHGfrCOpgPNSZ2k792aQ==
=Oqht
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Hi Yves-Alexis, hi Debian Xfce Maintainers,
in stable/bookworm too, as tumbler still breaks crossgrader
there? This should be possible as the bug is Severity: serious.

BTW, on https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/tumbler is written:

   testing migrations
      excuses:
         Migration status for tumbler (4.18.2-1 to 4.20.0-1):
         BLOCKED: Rejected/violates migration policy/introduces a
regression
         Issues preventing migration:
         ∙ ∙ Updating tumbler would introduce bugs in testing: #1083022
         [...]

So according to the BTS this bug has been reintroduced in
unstable with the 4.20.0-1 upload.

Thank you!

Best regards, Magnus

Is it severity:serious for stable though?
The bts is somehow wrong, the patch has been applied in 4.19.2-1 which was
uploaded to experimental. Not sure why it doesn't appear as such, I've
manually marked it as notfound in 4.19.2-1 and hopefully it'll be enough.
Thanks for the heads up though.

Regards,

Hi Yves-Alexis, hi Helmut!

@Helmut: I'm writing to you too because Yves-Alexis raised
the severity of the bug to serious and Yves-Alexis is asking
below if this does apply to stable too.

Well, I think so but let's see what Helmut will answer.

Thank you, Magnus

Hey, small clarification: Helmut was the one raising the severity, I was
asking if it was considered serious in stable as well (I'm not sure about the
intended cross-buildability/crossgradability of stable).

Regards,

be at least severity important. Beyond that, it very much is at the
discretion of the package maintainer whether they believe a bug should
be fixed in stable.

What is more important is a general cost/benefit analysis. A pu request
generally has to include it. There you state the benefits and the risks.

In this case, we are talking about removing "M-A: same" from a package
where coinstallation fails. Furthermore, it's a case that is being
encountered in the real world (hence the report). To me, that's
sufficient argument in favour of the change being beneficial.

The next question is whether its benefits justify the cost of doing a
stable upload. Maybe you have other more important changes and can piggy
back this change? If not, it's an upload changing one line. I'll likely
pass SRM quickly, but you still have all of the process for a niche
number of users.

It also is possible to do a stable update as a NMU, so Magnus could just
do it.

Helmut