Debian Bug report logs - #32877
[CONFFILE] Cleverer conffile merge

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Display info messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jules Bean <jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Cleverer conffile merge

Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 15:04:25 +0000 (GMT)

Package: dpkg
Severity: wishlist

When dpkg notices that a conffile has changed, it could rather helpfully
offer the option of using the merge command.

The command-line dpkg would use is

merge <conffile>.dpkg-new <conffile>.dpkg-dist <conffile>

Which, in merge speak, means

Check (linewise) for differences between <conffile>.dpkg-dist and
<conffile>.  Apply such differences to <conffile>.dpkg-new.

Dpkg could then use merge's exit code to find out whether there were any
conflicts, and recommend that the user check the file if there were - or
better still, launch $VISUAL for the user to do it themselves.

This won't work with all config files, but would definitely enhance dpkg's
usability.

The maintainer may wish to merge this bug with #1921.  #1921 claims that
dpkg doesn't keep the whole config file around - but when I was correcting
by hand, I found a <conffile>.dpkg-dist which did exactly this, so I don't
quite know the details here.

Jules Bean

/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
|  Jelibean aka  | jules@jellybean.co.uk         |  6 Evelyn Rd	       |
|  Jules aka     | jules@debian.org              |  Richmond, Surrey   |
|  Julian Bean   | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk        |  TW9 2TF *UK*       |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
|  War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left.             |
|  When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy.          |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/

Message #10 received at 32877@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Chris Waters <xtifr@dsp.net>

To: 32877@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Jules Bean <jules@debian.org>

Subject: ideas on conffile merge for dpkg

Date: 03 Jun 2000 14:58:37 -0700

I was just browsing the BTS to see if a bug report such as this had
been filed.  Since it has, I'll file my suggestions as an addition to
the existing report.  I've cc'd this to the original submitter of
#32877.

First, to restate the problem so that it's clear:  when you install a
package with conffiles which have been edited, dpkg will offer to let
you use the old or the new, or see the diffs.  What is notably lacking
is an option to merge the changes.

Now, the original report suggested using the merge program.  There are
two disadvantages to that:  1. merge is part of the rcs package, so
dpkg would have to pre-depend on rcs, which I don't think we want, and
2. merge isn't always successful, and resolving the matter when it
fails is something that requires experience and skill.  Dumping a
newbie into an editor with what is, essentially, a broken and probably
unusable config file, and expecting him or her to fix it is
unreasonable.

My suggested approach is as follows:

Allow the user to specify the action to take when there is a
conflict.  If the user specifies such an action, then a M]erge choice
will appear on the dpkg menu.  If the user does not specify such an
action, no such choice will appear (the menus will remain as they are
now).

Some people might like to just use their editor (esp. those who like
emacs's interactive merge tool).  Others might want to use patch, if
they have that but not rcs's merge.  Still others might just want the
freedom of the shell (^Z will get you there, but with no easy way to
find the old and new conffiles' names).

So, say, there could be a file /etc/dpkg/mergeconf.  If it doesn't
exist (or isn't executable), dpkg would ignore it and act the way it
does at present; otherwise, dpkg would offer the M]erge choice, and,
if chosen, would call /etc/dpkg/mergeconf with the names of the
relevent files as arguments.  The contents of /etc/dpkg/mergefile
would be user-defined, but we could offer some useful examples.
-- 
Chris Waters   xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
      or    xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr     | this .signature file.

Message #15 received at 32877@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michel Dänzer <daenzer@debian.org>

To: 32877@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Jules Bean <jules@debian.org>, Chris Waters <xtifr@dsp.net>

Subject: Yet another slightly different suggestion :)

Date: 23 Dec 2001 18:29:01 +0100

dpkg doesn't have to depend on rcs. It could recommend or suggest it,
and only offer merging the conffiles if merge is available. I don't see
the need for a configuration option. (BTW how are the diffs handled? I
don't see any package relationship to diff)

Obviously, a conffile should never be in a corrupt state, which would
probably be the case if there are conflicts, so I think the merge should
go into a new file with e.g. a .dpkg-merge suffix, where the admin can
resolve any conflicts and then move it over. The conffile itself should
be left alone or optionally replaced with the new version from the
package if the admin wishes so.

I'll probably dig into the code sooner or later, but I suspect people
who know the code could do this much quicker and better than I.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
XFree86 and DRI project member   /  CS student, Free Software enthusiast

Message #20 received at 32877@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net>

To: Michel D?nzer <daenzer@debian.org>, 32877@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#32877: Yet another slightly different suggestion :)

Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 18:41:05 +0100

Previously Michel D?nzer wrote:
> I'll probably dig into the code sooner or later, but I suspect people
> who know the code could do this much quicker and better than I.

The plan is to keep the original conffile in the dpkg database so
we can do a more useful merge actually.

Wichert.

-- 
  _________________________________________________________________
 /wichert@wiggy.net         This space intentionally left occupied \
| wichert@deephackmode.org            http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ |
| 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0  2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |

Message #23 received at 32877-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michel Dänzer <daenzer@debian.org>

To: Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net>

Cc: 32877-quiet@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#32877: Yet another slightly different suggestion :)

Date: 23 Dec 2001 18:55:24 +0100

On Sun, 2001-12-23 at 18:41, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > I'll probably dig into the code sooner or later, but I suspect people
> > who know the code could do this much quicker and better than I.
> 
> The plan is to keep the original conffile in the dpkg database so
> we can do a more useful merge actually.

So this is already in the works? Great, what's the ETA? :) Please let me
know if I can be of any help. If nothing else, I'd love to test anything
in this direction.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
XFree86 and DRI project member   /  CS student, Free Software enthusiast

Message #26 received at 32877-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net>

To: Michel D?nzer <daenzer@debian.org>

Cc: 32877-quiet@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#32877: Yet another slightly different suggestion :)

Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 18:56:44 +0100

Previously Michel D?nzer wrote:
> So this is already in the works? Great, what's the ETA? :) Please let me
> know if I can be of any help. If nothing else, I'd love to test anything
> in this direction.

Probably part of dpkg 1.10, which isn't soon I'm afraid. Too much
things we want to implement and verify and too little time.

conffile merging isn't all that difficult though so it'll probably
appear in CVS in the next month or so.

Wichert.

-- 
  _________________________________________________________________
 /wichert@wiggy.net         This space intentionally left occupied \
| wichert@deephackmode.org            http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ |
| 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0  2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |

Message #31 received at 32877@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Wayne Scott" <wscott@bitmover.com>

To: "Debian Bug Tracking System" <32877@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: dpkg: Please!!

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:50:23 -0500

Package: dpkg
Version: 1.10.4
Followup-For: Bug #32877

I agree emphathically!!

It would be great if you can merge changes in configfiles on update.
(just like 'cvs update')

And if dpkg doesn't currently save unmolested config files somewhere,
just create a copy of every config file in /var/lib/dpkg/config/<path>
when packages are installed.  (perhaps compressed)

The extra diskspace would be worth it.  Or make it optional.

-Wayne

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux desk.wscott1.homeip.net 2.4.19-pre9 #18 Wed May 29 10:19:16 EST 2002 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C

Versions of packages dpkg depends on:
ii  dselect                       1.10.4     a user tool to manage Debian packa
ii  libc6                         2.2.5-12   GNU C Library: Shared libraries an

-- no debconf information

Message #56 received at 32877@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Paul Smith" <psmith@nortel.com>

To: 32877@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Still tops on my wish-list...

Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 08:11:45 -0400

Is there any forward progress on this feature?  I really, really would
love to have this.  Munging and merging conffiles is by far the most
painful part of any upgrade for me... and most of my changes are simple
enough that a 3-way merge would handle them trivially.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <psmith@nortel.com>           HASMAT: HA Software Mthds & Tools
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.

Message #77 received at 32877@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Vasily i. Redkin" <vir@ctm.ru>

To: 32877@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Patch: add merge commands

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:58:27 +0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Attached patch (for dpkg-1.15.8.10) adds '--conf-merge-cmd' command line 
option, which adds user's favorite configuration files merging helper to 
the menu.

Usage example:

# dpkg --conf-merge-cmd='V;Diff/Merge versions with VIM;vim -d %O %N' 
install package.deb

or user can drop a file in /etc/dpkg/dpkg.cfg.d to permanently add 
his/her favorite merge tool:

# echo 'conf-merge-cmd V;Diff/Merge versions with VIM;vim -d %O %N' > 
/etc/dpkg/dpkg.cfg.d/50merge-vim

[dpkg-1.15.8.10-conf-merge-cmd.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #84 received at 32877@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Felix Berlakovich <felix@berlakovich.at>

To: "32877@bugs.debian.org" <32877@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Patch: cleaned up and applied previous patch

Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 19:39:05 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I applied the patch from Vasily i. Redkin to version 1.17.10 (and moved a redundant part into an own function). BTW his patch works great.  I did this in preparation for a possible threeway merge improvement. Is there still any interest in such a feature? Is there any reason why this patch was never integrated?

[dpkg-1.17.10-conf-merge-cmd.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #89 received at 32877@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>

To: Felix Berlakovich <felix@berlakovich.at>

Cc: "32877@bugs.debian.org" <32877@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Patch: cleaned up and applied previous patch

Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 09:56:55 +0200

Hi,

On Sat, 12 Jul 2014, Felix Berlakovich wrote:
> I applied the patch from Vasily i. Redkin to version 1.17.10 (and moved
> a redundant part into an own function). BTW his patch works great.  I
> did this in preparation for a possible threeway merge improvement. Is
> there still any interest in such a feature? Is there any reason why this
> patch was never integrated?

Paul Wise pointed me at http://community.libelektra.org/wp/?p=145 and
http://community.libelektra.org/wp/?p=153 which in turn brought
me back to this email.

A few comments:
1/ your mail doesn't contain any help offer to bring the patch to a
   state where it can be merged so it was not obvious that you were
   willing to invest time into improving it
2/ your mail was not very well formatted (a single line) and it's easy
   to miss it in the flow of mails
3/ you need to seek the input of Guillem Jover who is the main dpkg
   developer and who already reviewed earlier attempts to bring this
   feature
4/ yes we are interested in the feature but dpkg is an important piece of
   software and we must get it right from the start, so extra caution is
   always a good idea

With a few more researches, you could have found our wiki page
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg
which then links to
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/Proposals/ConffileDatabase
which contains the most recent attempt to bring this feature
to Dpkg. Sean Finney was working on this but unfortunately
he lost motivation due to lack of review by Guillem. Fortunately Guillem
is much more responsive nowadays so you might have more luck
to bring it to a mergeable state.

More links in the archive:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2009/09/msg00065.html
https://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2009/10/msg00056.html
https://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2009/12/msg00041.html

(5 years old already :-()

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Discover the Debian Administrator's Handbook:
→ http://debian-handbook.info/get/

Message #94 received at 32877@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Felix Berlakovich <felix@berlakovich.at>

To: 'Raphael Hertzog' <hertzog@debian.org>

Cc: "'32877@bugs.debian.org'" <32877@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: AW: Patch: cleaned up and applied previous patch

Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 08:42:57 +0000

Hi,

First off, thanks for your response!

> 1/ your mail doesn't contain any help offer to bring the patch to a
>    state where it can be merged so it was not obvious that you were
>    willing to invest time into improving it 

Ok,  maybe I was a bit unclear in my mail. Yes, we actually are interested in bringing
the patch to a useful state. 

> 2/ your mail was not very well
> formatted (a single line) and it's easy
>    to miss it in the flow of mails

Sorry, you are absolutely right. I didn't realise that the bugtracker would not
reflow my mail and when I did it was too late ;). 

> 3/ you need to seek the input of Guillem Jover who is the main dpkg
>    developer and who already reviewed earlier attempts to bring this
>    feature

Ok, thanks for the hint.

> With a few more researches, you could have found our wiki page
> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg
> which then links to
> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/Proposals/ConffileDatabase
> which contains the most recent attempt to bring this feature to Dpkg. Sean
> Finney was working on this but unfortunately he lost motivation due to lack
> of review by Guillem. Fortunately Guillem is much more responsive
> nowadays so you might have more luck to bring it to a mergeable state.

Thanks for the links and the information. The reason why I started with the
bug tracker was that I wanted to see whether somebody would respond in time.
I wanted to contribute these changes to Ians GSOC project, but it has a deadline.
That’s why we changed to ucf very quickly. However, I still would be happy to
have this feature in dpkg and I also will tell Ian to point to the links in his blog post.

Best regards

Felix

Message #99 received at 32877@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org>

To: Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>, 32877@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Felix Berlakovich <felix@berlakovich.at>

Subject: Re: Bug#32877: Patch: cleaned up and applied previous patch

Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 10:48:27 +0200

On Thu, 2014-08-14 at 09:56:55 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2014, Felix Berlakovich wrote:
> > I applied the patch from Vasily i. Redkin to version 1.17.10 (and moved
> > a redundant part into an own function). BTW his patch works great.  I
> > did this in preparation for a possible threeway merge improvement. Is
> > there still any interest in such a feature? Is there any reason why this
> > patch was never integrated?
> 
> Paul Wise pointed me at http://community.libelektra.org/wp/?p=145 and
> http://community.libelektra.org/wp/?p=153 which in turn brought
> me back to this email.

I noticed the initial blogs about elektra some time ago, and was
surprised (not in a positive way) that yet another time a GSoC had
been approved w/o any kind of previous interaction with a project it
supposedly required coordination with. Had pending sending myself a
mail to the gsoc list but had other stuff to do, and pretty much lost
the motivation after those blog posts… :/

> 4/ yes we are interested in the feature but dpkg is an important piece of
>    software and we must get it right from the start, so extra caution is
>    always a good idea

I think I've mentioned before, in any case I'm planning on getting
the conffiledb stuff ready hopefully before the freeze. Which is a
requirement for this bug being fixed.

> which then links to
> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/Proposals/ConffileDatabase
> which contains the most recent attempt to bring this feature
> to Dpkg. Sean Finney was working on this but unfortunately
> he lost motivation due to lack of review by Guillem. Fortunately Guillem
> is much more responsive nowadays so you might have more luck
> to bring it to a mergeable state.

Err, that's not what happened… it got old pretty quick when it was
obvious that the reviews were being ignored, from both me an Jonathan,
and Jonathan said as much on the list after similar claims appeared
there…

Guillem

Message #104 received at 32877@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Markus Raab <debian@markus-raab.org>

To: 32877@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#32877: Patch: cleaned up and applied previous patch

Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 12:14:41 +0200

Hello,

On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 10:48:27 +0200 Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-08-14 at 09:56:55 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Jul 2014, Felix Berlakovich wrote:
> > > I applied the patch from Vasily i. Redkin to version 1.17.10 (and moved
> > > a redundant part into an own function). BTW his patch works great.  I
> > > did this in preparation for a possible threeway merge improvement. Is
> > > there still any interest in such a feature? Is there any reason why this
> > > patch was never integrated?
> > 
> > Paul Wise pointed me at http://community.libelektra.org/wp/?p=145 and
> > http://community.libelektra.org/wp/?p=153 which in turn brought
> > me back to this email.
> 
> I noticed the initial blogs about elektra some time ago, and was
> surprised (not in a positive way) that yet another time a GSoC had
> been approved w/o any kind of previous interaction with a project it
> supposedly required coordination with. Had pending sending myself a
> mail to the gsoc list but had other stuff to do, and pretty much lost
> the motivation after those blog posts… :/

Sorry, that it went this way. The blog posts were a call that anybody 
interested in the topic should contact us. The only one who did contact us was 
Dominique Dumont. Most of the other work (except Config::Model) starved 
several years ago.

We wanted something where most of it can go upstream during (or shortly after) 
GSoC. The patches w/o or little reaction till years were not really a 
invitation. (But we still tried it!) Dpkg is not the only place where it may 
be done and it seems there is a good reason why several workarounds exist now.

However, I think bringing dpkg conffiles to our century would be an elegant 
solution. But that unfortunately it still remains to be done.

> > 4/ yes we are interested in the feature but dpkg is an important piece of
> >    software and we must get it right from the start, so extra caution is
> >    always a good idea
> 
> I think I've mentioned before, in any case I'm planning on getting
> the conffiledb stuff ready hopefully before the freeze. Which is a
> requirement for this bug being fixed.

This information would have been very useful earlier. A simple merge is 
already possible with the patch Felix wrote (based on an earlier patch). That 
would be already quite an improvement. However, if I understand you correctly, 
the reason not to accept the patch is that you want the full solution (3-way) 
or nothing. I understand that.

> > which then links to
> > https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/Proposals/ConffileDatabase

I wanted a proposal (based on ConffileDatabase and Config::Model approach, see 
https://wiki.debian.org/PackageConfigUpgrade) before the beginning of GSoC 
(later I wrote one, so that we have something to work with), unfortunately Ian 
did not finish nor publish it.

best regards,
Markus

Message #109 received at 32877@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Dominique Dumont <dod@debian.org>

To: 32877@bugs.debian.org

Subject: 2-way conf file merge is applied on lcdproc package

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 11:01:45 +0100

Hello

For the record, a 3-way configuration file merge is currently deployed
with lcdproc package using dh_cme_upgrade (which uses Config::Model 
and cme). [1] and [4]

Implementation details are provided in [2]

This approach can be applied to other packages even if cme is not a silver 
bullet: some work is required to use cme upgrade on configuration files.

A lot of work was done for lcdproc to provide a complete configuration model
that provide both upgrade and a configuration editor [3]. I believe that work
can be reduced if only configuration upgrade is desired: such a model needs 
less details.

Feel free to contact me for more details.

All the best

[1] https://ddumont.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/easier-lcdproc-package-upgrade-with-automatic-configuration-merge/
[2] https://wiki.debian.org/PackageConfigUpgrade
[3] https://ddumont.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/generate-a-configuration-editor-from-a-config-template-file-with-perl-lcdproc-example/
[4] https://ddumont.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/status-and-next-step-on-lcdproc-automatic-configuration-upgrade-with-perl-and-configmodel/

Message #114 received at 32877-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Interfax" <incoming@interfax.net>

To: 32877-quiet@bugs.debian.org

Subject: You have received a new fax, document 000817971

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 17:53:40 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

New incoming fax document.



You can find your fax document in the attachment.



Date:                Wed, 28 Oct 2015 10:12:30 +0300

Scan duration:       35 seconds

From:                Karl Bentley

File name:           fax_000817971.doc

Pages scanned:       9

File size:           171 Kb

Quality:             400 DPI



Thanks for choosing Interfax!

[fax_000817971.zip (application/zip, attachment)]

Message #119 received at 32877@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "FedEx SmartPost" <tony.farmer@javier-guijarro.com>

To: 32877@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Shipment delivery problem #00848671

Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 06:20:17 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Dear Customer,

This is to confirm that one or more of your parcels has been shipped.
Please, download Delivery Label attached to this email.

Yours trully,
Tony Farmer,
Sr. Support Agent.

[FedEx_00848671.zip (application/zip, attachment)]

Message #124 received at 32877@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "FedEx Standard Overnight" <victor.bridges@olivaaudio.es>

To: 32877@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Shipment delivery problem #00528763

Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 21:20:31 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Dear Customer,



Your parcel has arrived at August 18. Courier was unable to deliver the parcel to you.

You can review complete details of your order in the find attached.



Sincerely,

Victor Bridges,

Support Manager.

[Delivery_Notification_00528763.zip (application/zip, attachment)]

Message #129 received at 32877@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "FedEx Standard Overnight" <bryan.cooke@superiorglass.com>

To: 32877@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Shipment delivery problem #0000473034

Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 03:23:44 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Dear Customer,

Courier was unable to deliver the parcel to you.
You can review complete details of your order in the find attached.

Sincerely,
Bryan Cooke,
Delivery Agent.

[Delivery_Notification_0000473034.zip (application/zip, attachment)]

Message #134 received at 32877@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "FedEx 2Day" <jamie.wagner@showa-ind.com>

To: 32877@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Problem with parcel shipping, ID:00000754740

Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 06:24:41 +0900

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Dear Customer,



Courier was unable to deliver the parcel to you.

Please, open email attachment to print shipment label.



Kind regards,

Jamie Wagner,

FedEx Station Manager.

[FedEx_ID_00000754740.zip (application/zip, attachment)]

Message #139 received at 32877@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "FedEx International Ground" <joel.richards@kavisnailcare.com>

To: 32877@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Courier was unable to deliver the parcel, ID0000910528

Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 22:44:55 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Dear Customer,

We could not deliver your item.
Delivery Label is attached to this email.

Sincerely,
Joel Richards,
Operation Manager.

[Delivery_Notification_0000910528.zip (application/zip, attachment)]

Message #144 received at 32877@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "FedEx Standard Overnight" <lewis.nixon@dbdsrobotics.com>

To: 32877@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Problem with parcel shipping, ID:000922342

Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:18:34 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Dear Customer,

We could not deliver your item.
Shipment Label is attached to this email.

Regards,
Lewis Nixon,
FedEx Support Manager.

[Label_000922342.zip (application/zip, attachment)]

Message #149 received at 32877@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "FedEx International Next Flight" <maurice.davis@gicsindustrygroup.com>

To: 32877@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Unable to deliver your item, #00000863474

Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 22:18:41 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Dear Customer,

Courier was unable to deliver the parcel to you.
You can review complete details of your order in the find attached.

Sincerely,
Maurice Davis,
Operation Manager.

[Delivery_Notification_00000863474.zip (application/zip, attachment)]

Message #154 received at 32877@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "FedEx Standard Overnight" <albert.hendricks@pbm-group.co.uk>

To: 32877@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Shipment delivery problem #00000745033

Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 09:35:41 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Dear Customer,

We could not deliver your parcel.
Please, open email attachment to print shipment label.

Thanks and best regards,
Albert Hendricks,
Sr. Support Manager.

[00000745033.zip (application/zip, attachment)]

Message #159 received at 32877@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "FedEx International MailService" <adrian.haney@valldor7empresas.com>

To: 32877@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Delivery Notification, ID 000561851

Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 07:51:21 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Dear Customer,

Courier was unable to deliver the parcel to you.
Shipment Label is attached to this email.

Warm regards,
Adrian Haney,
FedEx Delivery Manager.

[000561851.zip (application/zip, attachment)]

Message #164 received at 32877@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "FedEx International Ground" <armando.baldwin@dfrens.com>

To: 32877@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Problems with item delivery, n.000908536

Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 03:41:58 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Dear Customer,

This is to confirm that one or more of your parcels has been shipped.
You can review complete details of your order in the find attached.

Thanks and best regards,
Armando Baldwin,
Support Manager.

[FedEx_ID_000908536.zip (application/zip, attachment)]

Message #169 received at 32877@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Danielle <daniellesharp76@gmail.com>

To: 32877@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Hey girl you

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 08:48:55 -0500

Sent from my iPhone

Message #174 received at 32877@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: PT FINDORA INTERNUSA <sankhokaihatsuco.ltd@outlook.com>

To: me <marketing01@findora.com>

Subject: P.O 22/09/2021

Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 21:26:56 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello,

Good morning,

We have gone through your samples from a partner and Here is our  Order 
List. Please do bear in mind that we are very much in  need of this 
order, quote your competitive prices.

Kindly send the Order confirmation.

Your early reply will be much appreciated.

Best Regards,

Maryanah Erwin.

PT FINDORA INTERNUSA

Jln Pahlawan 66 Kec. Arjawinangun

45162 CIREBON West-Java INDONESIA

tel : +62 231 357334

fax: +62 231 357260

email: marketing@findora.com

[P.O22.09.2021.cab (application/zip, attachment)]

Message #184 received at 32877-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Chris Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>

To: 32877-quiet@bugs.debian.org

Subject: tagging 32877

Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2025 23:22:30 +0100

Control: tags 32877 - patch

Apparently the patch is not in a state that can be merged.

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.