On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 14:09:24 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 25.04.2013 01:11, schrieb Michael Biebl: > > According to jwilk, this is a issue in the python package: > > <jwilk> mbiebl: I'm pretty sure it's not /usr/sbin/gconf-schemas that is > > missing, but /usr/bin/python (which is is -schema's shebang). > > <jwilk> Or more precisely, /usr/bin/python is there, but it's dangling. > > <jwilk> I looked at the build log and yeah, this is what happend: python > > is upgraded from 2.6 to 2.7, making /usr/bin/python dangling, because > > python2.7 is not unpacked yet. > > <jwilk> Then libgnome2-common is unpacked, which doesn't work without > > working /usr/bin/python. > > <jwilk> s/unpacked/prerm'ed/ in the last sentence. > > Adding an empty prerm can be considered a hack at best. Given that we > have 220+ packages which ship gconf schemas, adding it back to a single > package would be an incomplete fix anyway. > > dondelelcaro on #debian-devel suggested: > > <mbiebl> dondelelcaro: as for pre-depends: where would you add that? > <dondelelcaro> mbiebl: to python-minimal > <dondelelcaro> mbiebl: because right now, the Depends doesn't take > effect until python-minimal is configured, even when it is unpacked. > <dondelelcaro> mbiebl: so that's why you have a dangling symlink > <dondelelcaro> mbiebl: so if something that calls gconf-schema gets > called after python-minimal is unpacked, but before python2.7 is, you > get breakage. > > jwilk suggested: > <jwilk> Don't use Python (or anything non-essential) in maintainer > scripts (except maybe postinst), ever. > > Looking at /usr/bin/gconf-schemas, it's a rather simple python script. > Re-implementing it in shell shouldn't be too hard. > > release team, any opinions, preferences how to address this bug? > Thoughts in random order... 1) this is terrible 2) in the absence of loops, dpkg ought to unpack python2.7-minimal before python-minimal 3) adding pre-depends at this stage makes me extremely wary 4) rewriting gconf-schemas only helps if gconf-schemas is upgraded before its reverse deps 5) do we know why this only shows up now, and if there are real world cases where this issue occurs?
Cheers, Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
