Merge ~paride/ubuntu/+source/postfix:lp1906970-focal into ubuntu/+source/postfix:ubuntu/focal-devel

Proposed by Paride Legovini
Status: Approved
Approved by: Sergio Durigan Junior
Approved revision: 4f7a0878a299e33f184b8676cfdb477755ca2708
Proposed branch: ~paride/ubuntu/+source/postfix:lp1906970-focal
Merge into: ubuntu/+source/postfix:ubuntu/focal-devel
Diff against target: 28 lines (+8/-1)
2 files modified
debian/changelog (+7/-0)
debian/postfix.postinst (+1/-1)
Reviewer Review Type Date Requested Status
Sergio Durigan Junior (community) Approve
Canonical Server Core Reviewers Pending
Review via email: mp+407021@code.launchpad.net

This proposal supersedes a proposal from 2021-08-12.

Commit message

Focal SRU for LP: #1906970, same as https://code.launchpad.net/~paride/ubuntu/+source/postfix/+git/postfix/+merge/406805 but done against Focal.

Test PPA: https://launchpad.net/~paride/+archive/ubuntu/postfix-lp1906970

Test case: see [Test Plan] in the SRU bug description.

Autopkgtest summary (virt-server: lxd):

postfix PASS

To post a comment you must log in.
Revision history for this message
Sergio Durigan Junior (sergiodj) wrote :

Thanks for the MP, Paride.

There's a small nit with the package version; I'm leaving a comment with instructions on how to fix it.

The change itself LGTM (I reviewed the Impish MP, and this is the same change as was proposed there).

I also reviewed the SRU template on the bug and I have a few comments about it:

- Typo in the first line: s/cinf/conf/

- Duplicated text: "Test PPA"

- We're now using "[Where problems could occur]" instead of "[Regression Potential]".

- I tend to agree with your conclusion that the regression potential is negligible, but I also understand that the SRU team might frown upon this sentence. I think it's a good idea to mention that there is a very small potential for problems especially on Bionic because we could be rebuilding the package using newer versions of its dependencies. This is obviously a very rare and unlikely scenario to happen, but at least you're showing that you're considering every corner case :-). WDYT?

Aside from my comments above, the MP looks fine and should be ready for upload once the version nit is fixed.

Thanks again!

review: Needs Fixing
Revision history for this message
Paride Legovini (paride) wrote :

+1 on your suggestions on the SRU template, I appreciate that you went into the details. I agree that "negligible risk" was too strong as a claim, and in any case that's up to the SRU team to decide. I also added a paragraph mentioning the fact that problems on users' systems may occur just because of the upgrade-triggered service restart, if their system is broken for other reasons. I don't know how strongly this case is normally considered by the SRU team.

On the version string: thanks to calling it a nit :-) I fixed it and also uploaded the new package to the test PPA.

Revision history for this message
Sergio Durigan Junior (sergiodj) wrote :

Awesome, thank you for addressing the comments, Paride. I think the SRU template looks very good now.

I've sponsored this upload and therefore am marking this MP as approved. As discussed before, I'm not pushing the git-ubuntu tag because this is an SRU upload.

Thanks again.

$ dput postfix_3.4.13-0ubuntu1.1_source.changes
Trying to upload package to ubuntu
Checking signature on .changes
gpg: /home/sergio/work/postfix/postfix_3.4.13-0ubuntu1.1_source.changes: Valid signature from 106DA1C8C3CBBF14
Checking signature on .dsc
gpg: /home/sergio/work/postfix/postfix_3.4.13-0ubuntu1.1.dsc: Valid signature from 106DA1C8C3CBBF14
Uploading to ubuntu (via ftp to upload.ubuntu.com):
  Uploading postfix_3.4.13-0ubuntu1.1.dsc: done.
  Uploading postfix_3.4.13-0ubuntu1.1.debian.tar.xz: done.
  Uploading postfix_3.4.13-0ubuntu1.1_source.buildinfo: done.
  Uploading postfix_3.4.13-0ubuntu1.1_source.changes: done.
Successfully uploaded packages.

review: Approve

Unmerged commits

4f7a087... by Paride Legovini

Update d/changelog for 3.4.13-0ubuntu1.1

3759f2e... by Paride Legovini

d/postfix.postinst: tolerate search domain with a leading dot

Search domain with a leading dot cause postfix.postinst to fail because
it constructs a 'myhostname' with a duplicate dot (see #991950).

The glibc resolver tolerates such domains and strips the leading dot
from the search domain [1]. This change makes postfix.postinst do the
same.

This same fix has been proposed for inclusion in Debian [2].

[1] https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=resolv/res_query.c;h=ebbe5a6a4ed86abe3fccd4a134bfcf6f613c9bbb;hb=HEAD#l411
[2] https://salsa.debian.org/postfix-team/postfix-dev/-/merge_requests/12

Closes: #991950, LP: #1906970

Preview Diff

[H/L] Next/Prev Comment, [J/K] Next/Prev File, [N/P] Next/Prev Hunk
1diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
2index ad23036..395f459 100644
3--- a/debian/changelog
4+++ b/debian/changelog
5@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
6+postfix (3.4.13-0ubuntu1.1) focal; urgency=medium
7+
8+ * d/postfix.postinst: tolerate search domain with a leading dot
9+ (LP: #1906970)
10+
11+ -- Paride Legovini <paride@ubuntu.com> Thu, 12 Aug 2021 14:26:09 +0200
12+
13 postfix (3.4.13-0ubuntu1) focal; urgency=medium
14
15 * New upstream release: 3.4.13
16diff --git a/debian/postfix.postinst b/debian/postfix.postinst
17index dc28f3c..9ba7eac 100644
18--- a/debian/postfix.postinst
19+++ b/debian/postfix.postinst
20@@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ myfqdn() {
21 if [ $myhostname = ${myhostname%.*} ]; then
22 if [ -f /etc/resolv.conf ]; then
23 # The resolver uses the last one found, and ignores the rest
24- mydom=$(sed -n 's/^search[[:space:]]*\([^[:space:]]*\).*/\1/p;s/^domain[[:space:]]*\([^[:space:]]*\).*/\1/p' /etc/resolv.conf | tail -1)
25+ mydom=$(sed -n 's/^search[[:space:]]*\.*\([^[:space:]]*\).*/\1/p;s/^domain[[:space:]]*\.*\([^[:space:]]*\).*/\1/p' /etc/resolv.conf | tail -1)
26 myhostname="$myhostname${mydom:+.$mydom}"
27 else
28 myhostname="$myhostname.UNKNOWN"

Subscribers

People subscribed via source and target branches