Glad to see progress on this! On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 05:46:44PM +0200, Kasper Loopstra wrote:
> However, I am quite sure that I removed /usr/local/share before starting > off with the upgrade, so perhaps there is something wrong with the > upgrade path between wheezy and jessie. So below is what's in the > /usr/local/share after an upgrade. Is there anything wrong here? Or > shouldn't I have removed /usr/local/share without recreating it with > correct permissions? I think whatever recreated /usr/local/share without world read+execute bits is buggy and should be fixed before the release. Now we just need to find it. What's your umask setting during the upgrade? > root@chloromethane:/usr/local# ls -la share/ > total 20 > drwxr-x--x+ 5 root root 4096 Mar 29 13:35 . > drwxr-xr-x+ 5 root root 4096 Mar 29 13:14 .. > drwxrwsr-x+ 2 root staff 4096 Mar 29 13:34 ca-certificates > drwxrwsr-x+ 4 root staff 4096 Mar 29 13:35 emacs > drwxrwsr-x+ 2 root staff 4096 Mar 29 13:14 texmf The time stamps seem to suggest that the package that created /usr/local/share/texmf is to blame. However, that would be tex-common AFAICS, but its post-installation script doesn't seem to do this. In fact, it will not create /usr/local/share/texmf at all if /usr/local/share is missing. if you are able to recreate this, would it be possible for you to first remove /usr/local/share and then upgrade piecemeal, maybe starting with the tex* packages you have installed? Perhaps that would pinpoint the guilty package. -- Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
