Bug#671610: dpkg: error processing tex-common (--configure)

2012-05-06 Thread Norbert Preining
severity 671610 minor tags 671610 + unreproducible thanks Hi all, On Sa, 05 Mai 2012, Hilmar Preuße wrote: This is just the sub-bug. The initial problem (tex-common tries to remove a file w/o checking if it exists (row 406 in tex-common postinst) still exists. Yes ... ok ... but in his case

Bug#671610: dpkg: error processing tex-common (--configure)

2012-05-05 Thread Hilmar Preuße
On 05.05.12 Martin Haase (discipl...@gmx.net) wrote: Hi, Package: tex-common Version: 3.10 Severity: normal here's the output dpkg produces: - legoland:/home/...# dpkg --force-all --configure -a Setting up tex-common (3.10) ... rm: cannot remove /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf': No such file

Bug#671610: dpkg: error processing tex-common (--configure)

2012-05-05 Thread subhuman
On Sat, 5 May 2012 16:19:18 +0200 Hilmar Preuße hill...@web.de wrote: This should have been fixed in latest jadetex. Which version are you using? 3.13-13 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact

Bug#671610: dpkg: error processing tex-common (--configure)

2012-05-05 Thread Norbert Preining
Setting up tex-common (3.10) ... rm: cannot remove /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf': No such file or directory Did you *upgrade* or make a new installation? If you made an upgrade this file should be be present before upgrade, or did you remove some file by hand as root? Without caring for

Bug#671610: dpkg: error processing tex-common (--configure)

2012-05-05 Thread Norbert Preining
Hi, This should have been fixed in latest jadetex. Which version are you using? 3.13-13 How do you have still this version? It is neither in testing nor in unstable ...? Norbert PS I tend to close the bug, we don't care forbugs in temporary releases that never made it into stable and are

Bug#671610: dpkg: error processing tex-common (--configure)

2012-05-05 Thread Hilmar Preuße
On 05.05.12 Norbert Preining (prein...@logic.at) wrote: Hi, PS I tend to close the bug, we don't care forbugs in temporary releases that never made it into stable and are not existing anymore. This is just the sub-bug. The initial problem (tex-common tries to remove a file w/o checking if

Bug#671610: dpkg: error processing tex-common (--configure)

2012-05-05 Thread Norbert Preining
Hi Hilmar, This is just the sub-bug. The initial problem (tex-common tries to remove a file w/o checking if it exists (row 406 in tex-common postinst) still exists. I disagree, these are twoindependent bugs. One about the tex-common trying ro remove texmf.cnf (which has to be here), and one

Bug#671610: dpkg: error processing tex-common (--configure)

2012-05-05 Thread subhuman
On Sat, 5 May 2012 23:42:38 +0900 Norbert Preining prein...@logic.at wrote: Setting up tex-common (3.10) ... rm: cannot remove /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf': No such file or directory Did you *upgrade* or make a new installation? a new installation on a brandnew hdd (well, some weeks ago, and

Bug#671610: dpkg: error processing tex-common (--configure)

2012-05-05 Thread Frank Küster
subhuman discipl...@gmx.net wrote: On Sat, 5 May 2012 23:42:38 +0900 Norbert Preining prein...@logic.at wrote: Setting up tex-common (3.10) ... rm: cannot remove /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf': No such file or directory Did you *upgrade* or make a new installation? a new installation on a

Bug#671610: dpkg: error processing tex-common (--configure)

2012-05-05 Thread subhuman
On Sat, 05 May 2012 21:53:28 +0200 Frank Küster fr...@debian.org wrote: Then, maybe, it is a *different* package that removed /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf? Do you have dpkg logfiles, and could you check whether there were any tex-related removals? this seems to be all i can find. all of which is

Bug#671610: dpkg: error processing tex-common (--configure)

2012-05-05 Thread Hilmar Preuße
On 05.05.12 Norbert Preining (prein...@logic.at) wrote: Hi, This is just the sub-bug. The initial problem (tex-common tries to remove a file w/o checking if it exists (row 406 in tex-common postinst) still exists. I disagree, these are two independent bugs. One about the tex-common