Re: Bug#530832: Bug#531581: Critical problems on hppa and ia64 buildds
- To: Norbert Preining <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: Josselin Mouette <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Frank Küster <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, debian-devel <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Bug#530832: Bug#531581: Critical problems on hppa and ia64 buildds
- From: Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 14:54:27 -0700
- Message-id: <20090607215427.GB15862@dario.dodds.net>
- Mail-followup-to: Norbert Preining <email@example.com>, Josselin Mouette <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Frank Küster <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, debian-devel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <20090607213625.GG16399@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at>
- References: <email@example.com> <4A28071D.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4A281764.email@example.com> <20090604185525.GA14438@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> <4A2832BD.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <1244360895.5245.132.camel@shizuru> <20090607213625.GG16399@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at>
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
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 Developer http://www.debian.org/