Your message dated Tue, 14 Jan 2020 23:04:44 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#948501: roundcube-core: Elastic theme deps not
accessible
has caused the Debian Bug report #948501,
regarding roundcube-core: Elastic theme deps not accessible
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 [email protected]
immediately.)
--
948501: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=948501
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: roundcube-core
Version: 1.4.2+dfsg.1-1
Quack,
The new Elastic theme dependencies cannot be loaded. The symlinks to the
necessary JS libs are well installed by the package but as dh_link
transforms them into relative links, they stop pointing to the right
place when accessed via the vhost document_root (/var/lib/roundcube/).
# ls -l /var/lib/roundcube/skins/elastic/deps
total 4
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 60 Jan 1 23:09 bootstrap.bundle.min.js ->
../../../../nodejs/bootstrap/dist/js/bootstrap.bundle.min.js
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 55 Jan 1 23:09 bootstrap.min.css ->
../../../../nodejs/bootstrap/dist/css/bootstrap.min.css
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 39 Jan 1 23:09 less.min.js ->
../../../../javascript/less/less.min.js
Regards.
\_o<
--
Marc Dequènes
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 04:08:30 +0900, Marc Dequènes wrote:
> I upgraded from 1.4.1+dfsg.1-2 also in experimental, which was working fine,
> and got these symlinks wrong. You seemed to be certain they ought to be fine
> to I purged and reinstalled and they are fixed now. I'm not sure what
> happened during the upgrade as there were no errors and I did not temper
> with the files myself.
I see, don't recall anything relevant in the diff with 1.4.1+dfsg.1-2 but
I confess I didn't check too carefully the upgrade path from 1.4.1+dfsg.1-2
(exp), unlike the one from 1.3.10+dfsg.1-1 (testing/unstable). The
upgrade from 1.4~rc1+dfsg.2-1 to 1.4.1+dfsg.1-1 (both in experimental)
was broken, though not with symlinks but with the DB schema. Something
else must be broken somewhere.
> Anyway, I guess upgrade from versions in experimental are not really
> something important to take care.
Agreed, let's close this then :-)
Cheers,
--
Guilhem.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
