Bug#530832: Bug#531581: Critical problems on hppa and ia64 buildds
On So, 07 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > this occuring, but it's still a legitimate case (from dpkg's POV) where the > package's deps will not be satisfied when 'postrm remove' is called. Ah ok thanks. Anyway I have added code to protect this problem and next upload of tex-common will fix that. Thanks for the explanations Norbert --- Dr. Norbert Preining Vienna University of Technology Debian Developer Debian TeX Group gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 --- FOINDLE (vb.) To queue-jump very discreetly by working one's way up the line without being spotted doing so. --- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#530832: Bug#531581: Critical problems on hppa and ia64 buildds
On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 11:36:25PM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote: > On So, 07 Jun 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Le vendredi 05 juin 2009 à 21:15 +0200, Frank Küster a écrit : > > > texlive-base's postrm, upon REMOVE, uses a command from tex-common, on > > > which it already DEPENDS. This is allowed by policy. > > I’m not sure about the policy, but I’m certain that with the current > > dpkg version this will fail miserably in many cases. The only packages > Many cases? I disagree. Only in the case that someone removes a package > with --force, right? All other variants should be handled (hopefully!). Er, no, as has already been addressed in this thread, there are cases in which dpkg will legitimately leave a package in a state where its "postrm remove" is called after its dependencies have been removed, without any use of --force options. One is the case of a package being unpacked, then removed, without ever being configured. Another is the case of a package being deconfigured automatically by dpkg (dpkg --auto-deconfigure, aka dpkg -B, which is standard in upgrades), then having its dependencies removed from the system, then having the package removed. The higher-level package managers try to minimize the chance of this occuring, but it's still a legitimate case (from dpkg's POV) where the package's deps will not be satisfied when 'postrm remove' is called. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#530832: Bug#531581: Critical problems on hppa and ia64 buildds
On So, 07 Jun 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le vendredi 05 juin 2009 à 21:15 +0200, Frank Küster a écrit : > > texlive-base's postrm, upon REMOVE, uses a command from tex-common, on > > which it already DEPENDS. This is allowed by policy. > > I’m not sure about the policy, but I’m certain that with the current > dpkg version this will fail miserably in many cases. The only packages Many cases? I disagree. Only in the case that someone removes a package with --force, right? All other variants should be handled (hopefully!). > that are guaranteed to be available in the postrm are the essential > packages. Not according to the policy. > > It seems it is a bug of policy, or dpkg. > > Fixing the policy is probably easier than fixing dpkg… Agreed on that, but OTOH, that is *really* a problematic system, because we might leave things hanging around in a completely malconfigured way, and reinstallations do not allow to overwrite stuff (maybe). I don't have a szenario at hand, but I guess that changing policy in this respect is not a piece of cake, either. Best wishes Norbert --- Dr. Norbert Preining Vienna University of Technology Debian Developer Debian TeX Group gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 --- AYNHO (vb.) Of waiters, never to have a pen. --- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#530832: Bug#531581: Critical problems on hppa and ia64 buildds
Le vendredi 05 juin 2009 à 21:15 +0200, Frank Küster a écrit : > texlive-base's postrm, upon REMOVE, uses a command from tex-common, on > which it already DEPENDS. This is allowed by policy. I’m not sure about the policy, but I’m certain that with the current dpkg version this will fail miserably in many cases. The only packages that are guaranteed to be available in the postrm are the essential packages. > It seems it is a bug of policy, or dpkg. Fixing the policy is probably easier than fixing dpkg… -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in `- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Bug#530832: Bug#531581: Critical problems on hppa and ia64 buildds
Hi guys, let's calm down, its now worth discussing this even further. Policy is buggy, we try to work around it. > We'll have to make an upload of texlive-2007. First we need a fixed tex-common that creates "proper" (for buggy policy) postrm code. Then we can bump build-dep of texlive to that version of tex-common and rebuild. Questions: Do we want to bring that into lenny? I vote for NO, to much changes in tex-common already done (triggers). Best wishes Norbert --- Dr. Norbert Preining Vienna University of Technology Debian Developer Debian TeX Group gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 --- SWANAGE (pl.n.) Swanage is the series of diversionary tactics used when trying to cover up the existence of a glossop (q.v.) and may include (a) uttering a high-pitched laugh and pointing out of the window (NB. this doesn't work more that twice); (b) sneezing as loudly as possible and wiping the glossop off the table in the same movement as whipping out your handkerchief; (c) saying 'Christ! I seen to have dropped some shit on your table' (very unwise); (d) saying 'Christ, who did that?' (better) (e) pressing your elbow on the glossop itself and working your arms slowly to the edge of the table; (f) leaving the glossop where it is but moving a plate over it and putting up with sitting at an uncomfortable angle the rest of the meal; or, if the glossop is in too exposed a position, (g) leaving it there unremarked except for the occasional humorous glance. --- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#530832: Bug#531581: Critical problems on hppa and ia64 buildds
Luk Claes wrote: > Frank Küster wrote: >> Luk Claes wrote: >> >>> Norbert Preining wrote: On Do, 04 Jun 2009, Luk Claes wrote: > Except for arguing, mixing (non?) bugs and resisting to upload an easy > workaround might have made things worse btw... And that easy workaround would be??? >>> To only conditionaly use a command that seems to not always be available. >> >> COULD YOU PLEASE START READING WHAT WE ARE WRITING? > > Could you please do that from the start and not spread fud and shout all > the time? I still think that I have tried to give technical arguments all the time, until I had to should this time. I've not yet read one from you, it was Agustin who helped. >> texlive-base's postrm, upon REMOVE, uses a command from tex-common, on >> which it already DEPENDS. This is allowed by policy. > > Sure, though policy not describing what really happens will only make it > a bug in policy AND your package... Sad but true. >> The fact that in this particular chroot, texlive-base was installed >> without tex-common being installed, or even unpacked, is NOT A BUG OF >> tex-common. > > Sure it is. Err, that I still don't understand. I agree that it's a bug in texlive-base not to be able to cope with that. But how can it be a bug of package b that it is not installed, when package a depends on it and is installed? Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Debian Developer (TeXLive) VCD Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg, ADFC Miltenberg B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#530832: Bug#531581: Critical problems on hppa and ia64 buildds
Frank Küster wrote: > Luk Claes wrote: > >> Norbert Preining wrote: >>> On Do, 04 Jun 2009, Luk Claes wrote: Except for arguing, mixing (non?) bugs and resisting to upload an easy workaround might have made things worse btw... >>> And that easy workaround would be??? >> To only conditionaly use a command that seems to not always be available. > > COULD YOU PLEASE START READING WHAT WE ARE WRITING? Could you please do that from the start and not spread fud and shout all the time? > texlive-base's postrm, upon REMOVE, uses a command from tex-common, on > which it already DEPENDS. This is allowed by policy. Sure, though policy not describing what really happens will only make it a bug in policy AND your package... > The fact that in this particular chroot, texlive-base was installed > without tex-common being installed, or even unpacked, is NOT A BUG OF > tex-common. Sure it is. > It seems it is a bug of policy, or dpkg. Also true. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
