The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
commit 18b12083b5fee4e7e26e1382e50321e7956fcdb9
Author: Raphaël Hertzog hert...@debian.org
Date: Fri Apr 9 08:35:47 2010 +0200
dpkg: fix metadata installation by not mixing rename() in a readdir() loop
dpkg's
The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
commit ff03345b7a8d9dd0950dc581c5263373b2a0b406
Author: Raphaël Hertzog hert...@debian.org
Date: Fri Apr 9 09:36:22 2010 +0200
dpkg-source: do not allow underscore in component name for supplementary
tarballs
According the
Hi again,
Guillem Jover wrote:
Regardless of it being possible to call prerm by making the code in
dpkg more complex/intelligent, the thing is if it would be the correct
thing to do.
Yes, this is a useful question. Thank you for bringing it up.
First note that I don’t think this problem
Hi all,
2010/4/9 Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com:
Guillem Jover wrote:
I've not checked but I'd
expect this would imply only few lines of code on the apt side, just
removing the just disappeared package from the to be configured queue.
From my reading of
Hi (again),
2010/4/9 Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org:
- When you upgrades your system by some high-level package manager it
usually says you that 'packages oldpkg and newpkg will be upgraded' (or
'newpkg will be installed and oldpkg is upgraded'). Once oldpkg gets
suddenly dropped, it's
Hi,
[ please CC c...@p.d.o as well in all future front-end-related issues too ]
Guillem Jover wrote:
Thirdly, IMO this 'disappear' thing is a design flaw in dpkg/policy:
With this I disagree and I think it's a nice and useful feature to have.
Features are always nice to have, unless they
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 06:32:34PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
This is a part I can agree with, though, stop. Hah. Correct me if I am wrong:
new package got installed as a dependency of transitional package. So, it's
automatically installed. Now, after upgrade the transitional package is
Julian Andres Klode wrote:
On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 06:32:34PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
This is a part I can agree with, though, stop. Hah. Correct me if I am wrong:
new package got installed as a dependency of transitional package. So, it's
automatically installed. Now, after upgrade
Hi again,
Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
Guillem Jover wrote:
But if there was a
demonstrable need to run prerm script in this situation, I'd not see any
problem in an evaluation on adding such call.
I wonder why that exception was added in policy then.
My impression is that policy was
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Probably it never came up in practice, since tiny packages with preinst
are rare.
[...]
Unfortunately (for replaceable packages which preinst, which are rare)
s/preinst/prerm/
Sorry for the noise.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org
with
Hi,
David Kalnischkies wrote:
he needs to install git-core which he does again after noticing that it
doesn't work at the first try and face a conflict resolution process now…
(or he had git already installed through some dependencies and is now
immediately confronted with this conflict.)
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tag 575891 patch
Bug #575891 [dpkg] dpkg makes wrong assumption about readdir() and lose
metadata files with btrfs
Bug #567135 [dpkg] went missing from python-support directory on upgrade
Bug #568908 [dpkg] uses iceweasel for urls despite gconf
tag 575891 patch
thanks
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010, Joey Hess wrote:
cwillu wrote:
New information on http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=575891
Turns out to have been an unsafe assumption on dpkg's part with
apparently astronomic odds of being triggered on most filesystems.
Just finished testing the patch; looks good here.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Hi!
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 09:02:22 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
I want to push this patch in the next update (1.15.6.2).
Ah perfect! I wanted to fix this too for the next release, glad you
got to it while I was away.
Guillem, a quick ok from you would be nice (feel free to point stylistic
tag 575891 pending
thanks
Hello,
Bug #575891 reported by you has been fixed in the Git repository. You can
see the changelog below, and you can check the diff of the fix at:
http://git.debian.org/?p=dpkg/dpkg.git;a=commitdiff;h=18b1208
---
commit 18b12083b5fee4e7e26e1382e50321e7956fcdb9
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tag 575891 pending
Bug #575891 [dpkg] dpkg makes wrong assumption about readdir() and lose
metadata files with btrfs
Bug #567135 [dpkg] went missing from python-support directory on upgrade
Bug #568908 [dpkg] uses iceweasel for urls despite gconf
Hi,
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010, Guillem Jover wrote:
Guillem, a quick ok from you would be nice (feel free to point stylistic
issues if you have some).
Overall the patch looks good, I had in mind doing it in just two
passes by storing enough information, but this is fine for now, the
rest can
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.15.5.6
Severity: normal
Hi,
openoffice.org 3.2.0-6 contains three .orig-component.tar.gzs:
- ooo-build-3-2-0-9
- ext-sources-ooo-build-3-2-0-9
- translation-updates-translation-updates-20100219
this matches the ooo-build 3.2.0.9 release. Now I am going to update
to
19 matches
Mail list logo
