Hi Abou, On 02-11-2021 22:37, Abou Al Montacir wrote: > On Tue, 2021-11-02 at 21:22 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: >> I don't follow at all. > Sorry, I don't catch what do you mean here, probably due to my non > native English.
It means that I didn't understand everything you were saying as the problem at hand looked much simpler than your solution. I didn't understand why you needed the current or future solution, I am just trying to solve the actual bug in this report. > Did you not accept the new solution, or is my explanation above not > clear at all and confusing? I didn't try extremely hard to understand the real problem, but ... > If you don't like the new solution, it is fine with me. We can try to > fix the current one. Otherwise, please let me know and I can try to > explain it a bit more. If you come with a more elegant solution for the problem you try to tackle, I think we *still* need to solve this particular bug report as the problem is embedded in the package currently in testing. >> We're doing diversions in maintainer scripts and >> we forget to properly keep track of our diversions. > The list of diverted files is created automatically during the build > process in lazarus-src.preinst.[1] I know. > The very same list is created for lazarus-src.postrm.[2] Yes, but the list for 2.0.12 is apparently not the same and missing files compared to 2.0.10. >> With the new >> upstream version, apparently some files got dropped and the knowledge of >> the diversions got lost in the process. > This means that somehow, the lazarus-src.postrm was not called. Because 2.0.10 was upgraded to 2.0.12 and then 2.0.12 was removed. >> I think we can easily manually >> drop the diversions now by adding them here [1], while contemplating a >> saner and automated way of handling the underlying problem. > In the current case, lazarus-src.postrm is not called or is called but > does not fall in the list of tests we are doing (called with upgrade?). I understand the problem is that we first upgrade and then remove. The embedded list in 2.0.12 is not listing all files we had in 2.0.10. > However, in the past we did not remove the old lazarus when the new one > is installed (we were able to have 2.0.10 and 2.0.12). Now we allow this > only for major releases, not maintenance ones. You're confusing me. > So next time, soon, when > 2.2 will be there, the upgrade will not happen in the same way. > So if upgrading from 2.0.10 to 2.0.x we should remove diversions, but > not if we go to from 2.0.10 to 2.y with y > 0. > That was why I proposed to completely replace this mechanism with an > other one that let it handled automatically with dpkg, but maybe we can > just fix the logic in [3]. My point is that even if we replace the mechanism, we still need to remove the existing diversions from the version in testing, when upgrading to the version in unstable. Paul
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
