Bug#1028233: xz-utils: tries to overwrite files in manpages-fr (4.16.0-3~bpo11+1)
Hi Helge, On 16-02-2023 15:54, Helge Kreutzmann wrote: There is one small issue left, so I probably will issue another backport upload this weekend, but otherwise - this is (hopefully) completely resolved. This bug is currently marked RC and hence it showed up on my radar. If you fix RC issues, we'd appreciate the closure of the bug. This bug is the bug against manpages-fr. If you want to use this bug for your remaining minor issue, a reduction of severity might be more appropriate. Thanks for understanding. Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1028233: xz-utils: tries to overwrite files in manpages-fr (4.16.0-3~bpo11+1)
Hello Paul, On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 11:20:18AM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: > On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 07:36:33 +0100 Helge Kreutzmann > wrote: > > I expect upstream to release "this weekend" - but this might be > > actually next monday/tuesday. > > > > Then I might take a day or two to package this for unstable. > > I think this happened in version 4.17.0-1 and 2. The latter migrated to > testing on 25 January, right? Can we close this bug? From my side (i.e., manpages-l10n) everything has happend (this was tracked in a cloned bug), especially in backports. There is one small issue left, so I probably will issue another backport upload this weekend, but otherwise - this is (hopefully) completely resolved. Greetings Helge -- Dr. Helge Kreutzmann deb...@helgefjell.de Dipl.-Phys. http://www.helgefjell.de/debian.php 64bit GNU powered gpg signed mail preferred Help keep free software "libre": http://www.ffii.de/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1028233: xz-utils: tries to overwrite files in manpages-fr (4.16.0-3~bpo11+1)
Hi Helge, On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 07:36:33 +0100 Helge Kreutzmann wrote: I expect upstream to release "this weekend" - but this might be actually next monday/tuesday. Then I might take a day or two to package this for unstable. I think this happened in version 4.17.0-1 and 2. The latter migrated to testing on 25 January, right? Can we close this bug? Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1028233: xz-utils: tries to overwrite files in manpages-fr (4.16.0-3~bpo11+1)
Hello Sebastian, On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 11:24:43PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2023-01-11 21:01:11 [+0100], To Helge Kreutzmann wrote: > > > For your update you should use as version "<< 4.1.0-1". > > > (and remember to put it in for both manpages-de and manpages-fr) > > > > Okay, will do. > > Just to double check: This is what I did: > > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/xz-utils/-/commit/6d608a9e56921abbad77f07e9e0fe4bc78e93854 > > and you say that this is okay, right? I'm just checking that you really > meant 4.1.0-1 and not 4.10.0-1. I double checked. This is the last version of manpages-l10 which contained the templates for unstable/stable: ## Version 4.0.0 *Mon Mar 2 22:09:38 CET 2020* This is the first version of manpages-l10 which no longer contains the templates for unstable/stable (but for backports!). ## Version 4.1.0 *Wed Jul 1 12:26:57 CEST 2020* I did not check which man pages are actually shipped - this depends on how complete the translations are. If necessary, one would need to get the debs and review them. But I don't think this is necessary. Greetings Helge -- Dr. Helge Kreutzmann deb...@helgefjell.de Dipl.-Phys. http://www.helgefjell.de/debian.php 64bit GNU powered gpg signed mail preferred Help keep free software "libre": http://www.ffii.de/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1028233: xz-utils: tries to overwrite files in manpages-fr (4.16.0-3~bpo11+1)
Hello Sebastian, On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 11:16:45PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2023-01-11 21:53:14 [+0100], Helge Kreutzmann wrote: > > Hello Sebastian, > Hello Helge, > > > Well, this is not correct. See, e.g., > > https://packages.debian.org/bullseye-backports/all/manpages-de/filelist > > > > The man pages are there. > > yes, in backports. Not in the "regular" package. This is true - I cannot change the regular package after release - I have to take what translators provided me at that point of time. This is what backports is for. > > We just took our probably final "snapshot". I.e. in the next backport > > version, the man page as it was on monday in backports (or stable, if > > backports was empty) is used as base. So this will be the final > > release in bullseye-backports from our side. > > > > I don't know what the best solution is here. I see several options, > > all not very nice: > > > > 1. xz-utils does not ship translated man pages in backports. But then > >the translated man page is out of sync with the package (it is a > >pity that the upload to backports has not been done, already). > > > > 2. I manually remove the translations in my final backport. Then there > >is no file conflict. For this case, please tell me which man pages > >I should delete. And the final version shipping it in backports > >from my side would be "4.16.0-3~bpo11+1". > > > >Please tell me which version is the first backport version of your > >package containing the translations, and I will set the appropriate > >file relationships myself; however, I don't know if all upgrade paths > >will work, but we can try. > > > >With "all upgrade paths" I mean the user can have backports for > >either package or none. > > Okay. Let me get to this and then I will talk to you again once the > release team gives an ack. Ack. Just for your information: I expect upstream to release "this weekend" - but this might be actually next monday/tuesday. Then I might take a day or two to package this for unstable. After migration ( ~ 5 days) I would like to prepare my backports, which would need the proper package relations. (But I can delay this a few days, if necessary, of course). Greetings Helge -- Dr. Helge Kreutzmann deb...@helgefjell.de Dipl.-Phys. http://www.helgefjell.de/debian.php 64bit GNU powered gpg signed mail preferred Help keep free software "libre": http://www.ffii.de/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1028233: xz-utils: tries to overwrite files in manpages-fr (4.16.0-3~bpo11+1)
On 2023-01-11 21:01:11 [+0100], To Helge Kreutzmann wrote: > > For your update you should use as version "<< 4.1.0-1". > > (and remember to put it in for both manpages-de and manpages-fr) > > Okay, will do. Just to double check: This is what I did: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/xz-utils/-/commit/6d608a9e56921abbad77f07e9e0fe4bc78e93854 and you say that this is okay, right? I'm just checking that you really meant 4.1.0-1 and not 4.10.0-1. Sebastian
Bug#1028233: xz-utils: tries to overwrite files in manpages-fr (4.16.0-3~bpo11+1)
On 2023-01-11 21:53:14 [+0100], Helge Kreutzmann wrote: > Hello Sebastian, Hello Helge, > Well, this is not correct. See, e.g., > https://packages.debian.org/bullseye-backports/all/manpages-de/filelist > > The man pages are there. yes, in backports. Not in the "regular" package. > Of course, only those we have (had) in manpages-l10n, but de > definitely. > > We just took our probably final "snapshot". I.e. in the next backport > version, the man page as it was on monday in backports (or stable, if > backports was empty) is used as base. So this will be the final > release in bullseye-backports from our side. > > I don't know what the best solution is here. I see several options, > all not very nice: > > 1. xz-utils does not ship translated man pages in backports. But then >the translated man page is out of sync with the package (it is a >pity that the upload to backports has not been done, already). > > 2. I manually remove the translations in my final backport. Then there >is no file conflict. For this case, please tell me which man pages >I should delete. And the final version shipping it in backports >from my side would be "4.16.0-3~bpo11+1". > >Please tell me which version is the first backport version of your >package containing the translations, and I will set the appropriate >file relationships myself; however, I don't know if all upgrade paths >will work, but we can try. > >With "all upgrade paths" I mean the user can have backports for >either package or none. Okay. Let me get to this and then I will talk to you again once the release team gives an ack. Sebastian
Bug#1028233: xz-utils: tries to overwrite files in manpages-fr (4.16.0-3~bpo11+1)
Hello Sebastian, On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 09:01:10PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2023-01-10 09:36:04 [+0100], Helge Kreutzmann wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 09:38:31PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > Oki. That means if I intend to upload xz-utils to Buster with translated > > > man-pages than I need to check with you first? > > This will note prevent this bug, but see below for this case. However, > > it will fix peoples systems not using backports and upgrading from > > bullseye to bookworm after release. > > > > And this also explains why this bug was not seen on our side: During > > this time maintainership both for upstream and for the Debian package > > transitioned to new persons. And when I got responsible, I simply did > > not realise this one was forgotten. > > > > For bullseye: > > Do you want to publish a backport for xz-utils? Then it gets > > complicated. > > I planned to upload the latest v5.2.X release to bullseye. Code wise it > contains only fixes. Feature wise it contains more translations. There is > a bug open in xz-utils that the man-page for xz vanished in xz-utils. It > was provided by manpages-de but the release in Bullseye does not have > it. > The release team does not know about it and I have no idea if they allow > so I'm checking with you first before i collides somehow with manpages-fr > ;) Well, this is not correct. See, e.g., https://packages.debian.org/bullseye-backports/all/manpages-de/filelist The man pages are there. Of course, only those we have (had) in manpages-l10n, but de definitely. We just took our probably final "snapshot". I.e. in the next backport version, the man page as it was on monday in backports (or stable, if backports was empty) is used as base. So this will be the final release in bullseye-backports from our side. I don't know what the best solution is here. I see several options, all not very nice: 1. xz-utils does not ship translated man pages in backports. But then the translated man page is out of sync with the package (it is a pity that the upload to backports has not been done, already). 2. I manually remove the translations in my final backport. Then there is no file conflict. For this case, please tell me which man pages I should delete. And the final version shipping it in backports from my side would be "4.16.0-3~bpo11+1". Please tell me which version is the first backport version of your package containing the translations, and I will set the appropriate file relationships myself; however, I don't know if all upgrade paths will work, but we can try. With "all upgrade paths" I mean the user can have backports for either package or none. > > > > Technically, we treat debian-unstable and debian-backport as if they > > > > were two different distributions (say arch and fedora). > > > > > > > > What got lost (and I will investigate this later this week, maybe > > > > tomorrow) are the correct package relations. I have a vague idea, but > > > > I will check. And the next upload (including the one to bpo) will have > > > > the correct ones. > > > > > > Since "recently" xz provides translated man-pages and sid is not > > > affected. My understaning is that the bpo version of man-pages gets a > > > breaks statement against xz. If so that would >= 5.2.7. > > > Should I reassing the bug to manpages-l10n or do you do it yourself? > > > > Will be done, see above. And given that upstream got the translated man > > pages in April 2020, I understand the quotes around "recently". > > > > From your changelog I gathered the version "(<< 5.3.3alpha-0.0)". > > The man-pages started to appear in 5.2.7 which I uploaded to unstable at > the time. It was later superseded by the 5.3-beta series which become > 5.4 (non-beta) and was cooked at the same time in experimental. I fixed this for my upcoming package. > … > > As a side note: > > We have man page translations for several other languages as well. > > Over time, they will disappear, so I suggest to move them to xz-utils > > as well. I can send the po files to you and inform the translators > > about this, if you want. Then you can include them in your next upload > > (to fix bug "-1") as well. > > I would forward them to upstream if there is anything. Right now there > are man pages in ro/de/fr. Will do. Greetings Helge -- Dr. Helge Kreutzmann deb...@helgefjell.de Dipl.-Phys. http://www.helgefjell.de/debian.php 64bit GNU powered gpg signed mail preferred Help keep free software "libre": http://www.ffii.de/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1028233: xz-utils: tries to overwrite files in manpages-fr (4.16.0-3~bpo11+1)
On 2023-01-10 09:36:04 [+0100], Helge Kreutzmann wrote: > Hello Sebastian, Hi Helge, > On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 09:38:31PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > Sorry, I was really tired yesterday evening and just wanted to send a > short "ack". no worries. Just warning before I get all the credit ;) > > Oki. That means if I intend to upload xz-utils to Buster with translated > > man-pages than I need to check with you first? > > Let's separate this: > For buster I don't think anyone will care anymore. > > For bookworm: Yes, see: > https://wiki.debian.org/PackageTransition > Case #9: xz-utils is B, manpages-fr / manpages-de is A > > For some reason I did not realize this, it is now prepared for > manpages-l10n for the next release (slated next week, pending > upstream release). I did not create a bug for this (but please > do so, if you think it is necessary). > > For your update you should use as version "<< 4.1.0-1". > (and remember to put it in for both manpages-de and manpages-fr) Okay, will do. > This will note prevent this bug, but see below for this case. However, > it will fix peoples systems not using backports and upgrading from > bullseye to bookworm after release. > > And this also explains why this bug was not seen on our side: During > this time maintainership both for upstream and for the Debian package > transitioned to new persons. And when I got responsible, I simply did > not realise this one was forgotten. > > For bullseye: > Do you want to publish a backport for xz-utils? Then it gets > complicated. I planned to upload the latest v5.2.X release to bullseye. Code wise it contains only fixes. Feature wise it contains more translations. There is a bug open in xz-utils that the man-page for xz vanished in xz-utils. It was provided by manpages-de but the release in Bullseye does not have it. The release team does not know about it and I have no idea if they allow so I'm checking with you first before i collides somehow with manpages-fr ;) > > > Technically, we treat debian-unstable and debian-backport as if they > > > were two different distributions (say arch and fedora). > > > > > > What got lost (and I will investigate this later this week, maybe > > > tomorrow) are the correct package relations. I have a vague idea, but > > > I will check. And the next upload (including the one to bpo) will have > > > the correct ones. > > > > Since "recently" xz provides translated man-pages and sid is not > > affected. My understaning is that the bpo version of man-pages gets a > > breaks statement against xz. If so that would >= 5.2.7. > > Should I reassing the bug to manpages-l10n or do you do it yourself? > > Will be done, see above. And given that upstream got the translated man > pages in April 2020, I understand the quotes around "recently". > > From your changelog I gathered the version "(<< 5.3.3alpha-0.0)". The man-pages started to appear in 5.2.7 which I uploaded to unstable at the time. It was later superseded by the 5.3-beta series which become 5.4 (non-beta) and was cooked at the same time in experimental. … > As a side note: > We have man page translations for several other languages as well. > Over time, they will disappear, so I suggest to move them to xz-utils > as well. I can send the po files to you and inform the translators > about this, if you want. Then you can include them in your next upload > (to fix bug "-1") as well. I would forward them to upstream if there is anything. Right now there are man pages in ro/de/fr. > Greetings > >Helge > Sebastian
Bug#1028233: xz-utils: tries to overwrite files in manpages-fr (4.16.0-3~bpo11+1)
clone 1028233 -1 retitle -1 Provide proper package relationship with manpages-xx severity -1 serious reassign 1028233 manpages-fr found 1028233 4.16.0-3~bpo11+1 severity 1028233 serious tags 1028233 + pending thanks Hello Sebastian, On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 09:38:31PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2023-01-09 21:13:16 [+0100], Helge Kreutzmann wrote: > > Hello Sebastian, > > just to correct your previous email, the bug report was/is from Raphaël > Halimi not me. I just pinged you. Sorry, I was really tired yesterday evening and just wanted to send a short "ack". > > > Interresing. manpages-fr and manpages-de from manpages-l10n in bookworm > > > does not ship $LANG/man1/xz.1.gz but that one in bullseye-bpo does. > > > This does does not look right. > > > > It is. The man pages always mirror what is present in the > > distribution. When the translation of the man pages move to xz (from > > manpages-l10n), version build for unstable of manpages-l10n also > > removed the translation. > > > > However, the in bullseye-bpo the translation is *not* in xz-utils, and > > hence it is shipped by manpages-l10n. > > Oki. That means if I intend to upload xz-utils to Buster with translated > man-pages than I need to check with you first? Let's separate this: For buster I don't think anyone will care anymore. For bookworm: Yes, see: https://wiki.debian.org/PackageTransition Case #9: xz-utils is B, manpages-fr / manpages-de is A For some reason I did not realize this, it is now prepared for manpages-l10n for the next release (slated next week, pending upstream release). I did not create a bug for this (but please do so, if you think it is necessary). For your update you should use as version "<< 4.1.0-1". (and remember to put it in for both manpages-de and manpages-fr) This will note prevent this bug, but see below for this case. However, it will fix peoples systems not using backports and upgrading from bullseye to bookworm after release. And this also explains why this bug was not seen on our side: During this time maintainership both for upstream and for the Debian package transitioned to new persons. And when I got responsible, I simply did not realise this one was forgotten. For bullseye: Do you want to publish a backport for xz-utils? Then it gets complicated. Otherwise I will update the Breaks/Replaces for xz-utils to correctly reflect the situation in manpages-l10n. I don't think you can (and should) do anything for this case. In the past, in similar transitions, it worked this way (the situation for backports is, well, 2nd class and not optimally supported by our tools, but the breakage should be avoided). This fix will be published, once my next upload has migrated to testing. And it will close this bug (unfortunately, dak ignores uploads to backports for closing, I'll do this manually later). > > Technically, we treat debian-unstable and debian-backport as if they > > were two different distributions (say arch and fedora). > > > > What got lost (and I will investigate this later this week, maybe > > tomorrow) are the correct package relations. I have a vague idea, but > > I will check. And the next upload (including the one to bpo) will have > > the correct ones. > > Since "recently" xz provides translated man-pages and sid is not > affected. My understaning is that the bpo version of man-pages gets a > breaks statement against xz. If so that would >= 5.2.7. > Should I reassing the bug to manpages-l10n or do you do it yourself? Will be done, see above. And given that upstream got the translated man pages in April 2020, I understand the quotes around "recently". From your changelog I gathered the version "(<< 5.3.3alpha-0.0)". > > > I could try to upgrade xz in bullseye to a newert version with > > > translated man pages but IMHO the testing and bpo version should remain > > > unchaned. Did I miss something? > > > > Remove manpages-fr, then continue with the upgrade and after you are > > in bookwork, install manpages-fr again. > > Raphaël: ^^ Or wait until the next backport has appeard (might take ~ 2-3 weeks). Then it should no longer be necessary, see above. As a side note: We have man page translations for several other languages as well. Over time, they will disappear, so I suggest to move them to xz-utils as well. I can send the po files to you and inform the translators about this, if you want. Then you can include them in your next upload (to fix bug "-1") as well. Greetings Helge -- Dr. Helge Kreutzmann deb...@helgefjell.de Dipl.-Phys. http://www.helgefjell.de/debian.php 64bit GNU powered gpg signed mail preferred Help keep free software "libre": http://www.ffii.de/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1028233: xz-utils: tries to overwrite files in manpages-fr (4.16.0-3~bpo11+1)
On 2023-01-09 21:13:16 [+0100], Helge Kreutzmann wrote: > Hello Sebastian, Hi Helge, just to correct your previous email, the bug report was/is from Raphaël Halimi not me. I just pinged you. > > Interresing. manpages-fr and manpages-de from manpages-l10n in bookworm > > does not ship $LANG/man1/xz.1.gz but that one in bullseye-bpo does. > > This does does not look right. > > It is. The man pages always mirror what is present in the > distribution. When the translation of the man pages move to xz (from > manpages-l10n), version build for unstable of manpages-l10n also > removed the translation. > > However, the in bullseye-bpo the translation is *not* in xz-utils, and > hence it is shipped by manpages-l10n. Oki. That means if I intend to upload xz-utils to Buster with translated man-pages than I need to check with you first? > Technically, we treat debian-unstable and debian-backport as if they > were two different distributions (say arch and fedora). > > What got lost (and I will investigate this later this week, maybe > tomorrow) are the correct package relations. I have a vague idea, but > I will check. And the next upload (including the one to bpo) will have > the correct ones. Since "recently" xz provides translated man-pages and sid is not affected. My understaning is that the bpo version of man-pages gets a breaks statement against xz. If so that would >= 5.2.7. Should I reassing the bug to manpages-l10n or do you do it yourself? > > I could try to upgrade xz in bullseye to a newert version with > > translated man pages but IMHO the testing and bpo version should remain > > unchaned. Did I miss something? > > Remove manpages-fr, then continue with the upgrade and after you are > in bookwork, install manpages-fr again. Raphaël: ^^ > Sorry for the inconvenience. No worries, thanks for the quick response. > Greetings > > Helge Sebastian
Bug#1028233: xz-utils: tries to overwrite files in manpages-fr (4.16.0-3~bpo11+1)
Hello Sebastian, On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 02:27:35PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2023-01-08 18:32:26 [+0100], Raphaël Halimi wrote: > > Today I tried to upgrade a Bullseye laptop to Bookworm. > > > > The upgrade crashed with xz-utils trying to overwrite > > /usr/share/man/fr/man1/xz.1.gz which belonged to manpages-fr from backports > > (4.16.0-3~bpo11+1). > > > > After running dpkg --force-overwrite (it's the only way I know of in such > > situations), a whole bunch of manual pages were overwritten : > > > > /usr/share/man/fr/man1/xz.1.gz > … > > > > I don't see a clean solution to ensure a smooth upgrade for people who have > > installed this backport. Maybe coordinate with manpages-fr maintainer and > > release updated backports for both packages, before Bookworm is released ? > > Interresing. manpages-fr and manpages-de from manpages-l10n in bookworm > does not ship $LANG/man1/xz.1.gz but that one in bullseye-bpo does. > This does does not look right. It is. The man pages always mirror what is present in the distribution. When the translation of the man pages move to xz (from manpages-l10n), version build for unstable of manpages-l10n also removed the translation. However, the in bullseye-bpo the translation is *not* in xz-utils, and hence it is shipped by manpages-l10n. Technically, we treat debian-unstable and debian-backport as if they were two different distributions (say arch and fedora). What got lost (and I will investigate this later this week, maybe tomorrow) are the correct package relations. I have a vague idea, but I will check. And the next upload (including the one to bpo) will have the correct ones. > I could try to upgrade xz in bullseye to a newert version with > translated man pages but IMHO the testing and bpo version should remain > unchaned. Did I miss something? Remove manpages-fr, then continue with the upgrade and after you are in bookwork, install manpages-fr again. Sorry for the inconvenience. Greetings Helge -- Dr. Helge Kreutzmann deb...@helgefjell.de Dipl.-Phys. http://www.helgefjell.de/debian.php 64bit GNU powered gpg signed mail preferred Help keep free software "libre": http://www.ffii.de/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1028233: xz-utils: tries to overwrite files in manpages-fr (4.16.0-3~bpo11+1)
Hello Sebastian, thanks for your report. On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 02:27:35PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2023-01-08 18:32:26 [+0100], Raphaël Halimi wrote: > > Today I tried to upgrade a Bullseye laptop to Bookworm. > > > > The upgrade crashed with xz-utils trying to overwrite > > /usr/share/man/fr/man1/xz.1.gz which belonged to manpages-fr from backports > > (4.16.0-3~bpo11+1). > > > > After running dpkg --force-overwrite (it's the only way I know of in such > > situations), a whole bunch of manual pages were overwritten : > > > > /usr/share/man/fr/man1/xz.1.gz > … > > > > I don't see a clean solution to ensure a smooth upgrade for people who have > > installed this backport. Maybe coordinate with manpages-fr maintainer and > > release updated backports for both packages, before Bookworm is released ? > > Interresing. manpages-fr and manpages-de from manpages-l10n in bookworm > does not ship $LANG/man1/xz.1.gz but that one in bullseye-bpo does. > This does does not look right. > > I could try to upgrade xz in bullseye to a newert version with > translated man pages but IMHO the testing and bpo version should remain > unchaned. Did I miss something? Looks like manpages-l10n is missing some package releationships. Also xz might do so as well (I did not check). I'm not sure why, but I will fix this in my next upload which is due in ~ 1-2 weeks. (Please note, that the backport might be some time later, as first the version in unstable needs to reach testing). I will investigate this in the next days and propose correct package relationship; I had similiar situations in the past as well. Greetings Helge -- Dr. Helge Kreutzmann deb...@helgefjell.de Dipl.-Phys. http://www.helgefjell.de/debian.php 64bit GNU powered gpg signed mail preferred Help keep free software "libre": http://www.ffii.de/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1028233: xz-utils: tries to overwrite files in manpages-fr (4.16.0-3~bpo11+1)
On 2023-01-08 18:32:26 [+0100], Raphaël Halimi wrote: > Today I tried to upgrade a Bullseye laptop to Bookworm. > > The upgrade crashed with xz-utils trying to overwrite > /usr/share/man/fr/man1/xz.1.gz which belonged to manpages-fr from backports > (4.16.0-3~bpo11+1). > > After running dpkg --force-overwrite (it's the only way I know of in such > situations), a whole bunch of manual pages were overwritten : > > /usr/share/man/fr/man1/xz.1.gz … > > I don't see a clean solution to ensure a smooth upgrade for people who have > installed this backport. Maybe coordinate with manpages-fr maintainer and > release updated backports for both packages, before Bookworm is released ? Interresing. manpages-fr and manpages-de from manpages-l10n in bookworm does not ship $LANG/man1/xz.1.gz but that one in bullseye-bpo does. This does does not look right. I could try to upgrade xz in bullseye to a newert version with translated man pages but IMHO the testing and bpo version should remain unchaned. Did I miss something? > Regards, Sebastian
Bug#1028233: xz-utils: tries to overwrite files in manpages-fr (4.16.0-3~bpo11+1)
Package: xz-utils Version: 5.4.0-0.1 Dear developer, I'm not sure if it's the right place to report the bug since it involves a conflict with a backport. Today I tried to upgrade a Bullseye laptop to Bookworm. The upgrade crashed with xz-utils trying to overwrite /usr/share/man/fr/man1/xz.1.gz which belonged to manpages-fr from backports (4.16.0-3~bpo11+1). After running dpkg --force-overwrite (it's the only way I know of in such situations), a whole bunch of manual pages were overwritten : /usr/share/man/fr/man1/xz.1.gz /usr/share/man/fr/man1/xzdiff.1.gz /usr/share/man/fr/man1/xzless.1.gz /usr/share/man/fr/man1/xzmore.1.gz /usr/share/man/fr/man1/lzcat.1.gz /usr/share/man/fr/man1/lzcmp.1.gz /usr/share/man/fr/man1/lzdiff.1.gz /usr/share/man/fr/man1/lzless.1.gz /usr/share/man/fr/man1/lzma.1.gz /usr/share/man/fr/man1/lzmore.1.gz /usr/share/man/fr/man1/unlzma.1.gz /usr/share/man/fr/man1/unxz.1.gz /usr/share/man/fr/man1/xzcat.1.gz /usr/share/man/fr/man1/xzcmp.1.gz I don't see a clean solution to ensure a smooth upgrade for people who have installed this backport. Maybe coordinate with manpages-fr maintainer and release updated backports for both packages, before Bookworm is released ? Regards, -- Raphaël Halimi
