Hi, On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 12:03 PM Simon McVittie <s...@debian.org> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 10:04:28 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > > Setting up fuse (2.9.9-1) ... > > dpkg: error processing package fuse (--configure): > > installed fuse package post-installation script subprocess returned error > > exit status 1 > ... > > # udevadm test --action -p /devices/virtual/misc/fuse > > Invalid action '-p' Ouch, it's a leftover (outdated lines) from the time when fuse installed its udev rules. Now it should be something like this: "udevadm test --action=change /devices/virtual/misc/fuse". But now as udev ships its fuse rules (in 50-udev-default.rules and 99-systemd.rules) this is not needed anymore.
> Similar to the equivalent fuse3 bug #934293, this seems to be a regression > since buster: the same binary package installs OK on buster. Maybe > udevadm became more strict about its parameter parsing? As mentioned elsewhere, this seems to be the case. About the the transition, it is expected but I would like to get more information on it. > Similar to fuse3, it would be helpful if the maintainer script had less > "> /dev/null 2>&1" so that error messages would appear. Well, the expected output (on my Buster system) is 131 lines long. These are not relevant for normal users / usage. > > I'm not exactly sure what this code is supposed to achieve. > > Since fuse no longer ships its own udev rules, maybe it can be dropped > > altogether? Trigger an udev rules change after the package installed its udev rule. > Or if the postinst is still necessary, maybe fuse3 could take over the > fuse binary package name for bullseye (with a transitional package) so that > bugs like this one don't need to be fixed in both places? For the time I will fix it independently. I can't promise when the actual transition will take place. But if you can, please check the proposed package update[1]. Thanks, Laszlo/GCS [1] dget -x http://www.barcikacomp.hu/gcs/fuse_2.9.9-2.dsc
