Bug#259302: Patch update against base-files 3.1
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 06:14:24PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: >> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004, Kurt Roeckx wrote: >> >> > On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 04:39:06PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: >> > > >> > > Could you please provide details about the problem of having the >> > > symlinks in glibc? >> > > >> > > Is it that glibc has a versioned Replaces: base-files and dpkg removes >> > > the symlink in base-files before installing the one from glibc, >> > > creating a big window during which /lib64 does not exist at all? >> > >> > glibc (libc6) does not replace base-files. Why should it? >> >> Because otherwise the upgrade from an already running amd64 system >> (which has a modified base-files containing the symlink) would result >> in dpkg complaining about a file conflict. A Replaces field would >> allow dpkg to move the ownership of the symlink from base-files to >> libc in a clean way. However, it there is a time window during which >> /lib64 does not exist at all it will not work that way. > > I've patched the latest glibc to to provide the symlink. This is > what I get: > apt-get upgrade > Reading Package Lists... Done > Building Dependency Tree... Done > The following packages will be upgraded: > libc6 libc6-dev > 2 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. > Need to get 0B/8813kB of archives. > After unpacking 135kB of additional disk space will be used. > Do you want to continue? [Y/n] y > (Reading database ... 10369 files and directories currently installed.) > Preparing to replace libc6-dev 2.3.2.ds1-18 (using > .../libc6-dev_2.3.2.ds1-19_amd64.deb) ... > Unpacking replacement libc6-dev ... > Preparing to replace libc6 2.3.2.ds1-18 (using > ..././libc6_2.3.2.ds1-19_amd64.deb) ... > Unpacking replacement libc6 ... > dpkg - warning, overriding problem because --force enabled: > trying to overwrite `/lib64', which is also in package base-files Does libc6 replace base-files? > Setting up libc6 (2.3.2.ds1-19) ... > Current default timezone: 'Europe/Brussels'. > Local time is now: Sun Dec 5 23:19:17 CET 2004. > Universal Time is now: Sun Dec 5 22:19:17 UTC 2004. > Run 'tzconfig' if you wish to change it. > > Setting up libc6-dev (2.3.2.ds1-19) ... > > (Note that is a patched 2.3.2.ds1-19, didn't change the version > number yet.) > > At that point the /lib64 symlink it owned by the libc6 package. > > Now I just need to be sure how to package this properly so > nobody has problems updating libc6 and base-files at the > same time. Any hint welcome. > > > Kurt I was thinking about that and noticed some problem. I haven't checked the docs or source yet so this is from memory: When dpkg updates base-files and libc6 at the same time (and even when base-files predepends on libc6) the following happens: - base-files and libc6 control.tar.gz is unpacked and preinst is run. - base-files and libc6 data.tar.gz each are unpacked and obsolete files are removed. The order can be either way and if base-files is first we are screwed. - libc6 is configured. - base-files is configured. So the problem is the second step. Is my memory right there or does dpkg first unpack all debs and only then remove obsolete files? I fear removing the /lib64 from base-files.list in preinst could be neccessary. Just till every amd64 user has updated. MfG Goswin PS: Can you put the libc6 on alioth sopmewhere. No point in rebuilding it again just to test some more. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#228486: No mention of german quotes in release-notes yet
Hello, (please CC: me on replies, thanks) I pulled the release notes from http://cvs.debian.org/ddp/manuals.sgml/release-notes/en/release-notes.en.sgml?cvsroot=debian-doc and could not find a mention of the degraded german quotes on the CLI. As discussed in http://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2004/09/msg00046.html and references therin, this should be mentioned in the release notes, possibly noting that this is done to follow upstream[1]. If you want I can write a paragraph. There is a section labeled "Detailed Changes to the System" which I think would be perfect for this information. If you need more information, please ask; but first read the afore mentioned references as this topic has been studied intensivly. Greetings Helge [1] The maintainers of glibc have clearly stated that they consider this issue post-sarge. -- Helge Kreutzmann, Dipl.-Phys. [EMAIL PROTECTED] gpg signed mail preferred 64bit GNU powered http://www.itp.uni-hannover.de/~kreutzm Help keep free software "libre": http://www.freepatents.org/ pgp920Toixn59.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#259302: Patch update against base-files 3.1
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Preparing to replace libc6-dev 2.3.2.ds1-18 (using > > .../libc6-dev_2.3.2.ds1-19_amd64.deb) ... > > Unpacking replacement libc6-dev ... > > Preparing to replace libc6 2.3.2.ds1-18 (using > > ..././libc6_2.3.2.ds1-19_amd64.deb) ... > > Unpacking replacement libc6 ... > > dpkg - warning, overriding problem because --force enabled: > > trying to overwrite `/lib64', which is also in package base-files > > Does libc6 replace base-files? Most probably, not. A Replaces: field would produce different messages. It seems --force-overwrite is enabled by default on amd64. You are lucky :-) > > Now I just need to be sure how to package this properly so > > nobody has problems updating libc6 and base-files at the > > same time. Any hint welcome. > > > > > > Kurt > > I was thinking about that and noticed some problem. I haven't checked > the docs or source yet so this is from memory: > > When dpkg updates base-files and libc6 at the same time (and > even when base-files predepends on libc6) the following happens: > > - base-files and libc6 control.tar.gz is unpacked and preinst is run. > > - base-files and libc6 data.tar.gz each are unpacked and obsolete > files are removed. The order can be either way and if base-files is > first we are screwed. > > - libc6 is configured. > > - base-files is configured. > > So the problem is the second step. Is my memory right there or does > dpkg first unpack all debs and only then remove obsolete files? PreDepends are stronger than Depends. If you upload a base-files version which Pre-Depends on the libc6 that contains /lib64, then such libc6 should be unpacked *and* configured first. Unfortunately, removing /lib64 in the preinst does not seem to work (I've just checked). Instead, you probably need a base-files version which *contains* /lib64 in the .deb but removes it from base-files.list in the postinst (not the preinst). > I fear removing the /lib64 from base-files.list in preinst could be > neccessary. Just till every amd64 user has updated. Yes, some hacks will have to be there for some time. It could be like this: a) A new base-files removes /lib64 from base-files.list in postinst. b) Wait until everybody has upgraded. c) Upload libc6 containing /lib64. d) Remove /lib64 from base-files, or just remove the special amd64 base-files version and use the ordinary one, which does not contain /lib64. Upgrading from the version which removed /lib64 from its .list should be safe. So, I think it would be better if base-files stops claiming ownership over /lib64 ASAP, before the symlink is added to libc6. Then there is the problem of new installs (debootstrap). I think the above plan would work for new installs as well. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#78920: Apartment#: 368
Hello, I have been emailing men from around my neighbourhood. First of all my "name" is Fritz Jack. This isn't my real name but I use it when my husband is out of town. I have seen you around and would like you to take me out on a date. My husband will be out of town until Dec 24th, 2004 I must keep my information confidental so I am using a website to do so. http://www.lonelyworld.biz/tmember/2142313.php -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
