[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#716880: apache2 upgrade failed



On 07.08.2013 21:39, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 02:39:41PM +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
>>>  * The only way to ship a package named apache2.2-common is to add a
>>>    Breaks header listing every single reverse dependency with correct
>>>    version information.
>>
>> That would be 100+ Breaks. I do not think that is feasible but that may
>> need a wider discussion.
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion?  I looked at the current testing
> distribution, and the only direct dependency on apache2.2-common is
> libapache2-svn, which may go away when subversion is able to
> transition to testing.

It's one now. :)

It was the state as of Squeeze at the time I wrote this as we were in
the middle of the transition. Now we can seriously consider doing the
transition package approach.

> Also, it is important to realise that without a dependency from
> apache2.4 on apache2.2-common, apache2.2-common could be purged by
> apt(itude) before the first apache2.4 package is even unpacked:
> looking at my dpkg log, this is exactly what happened.  So the
> mechanism in apache2.2-common.postrm of checking for
> /etc/apache2/upgrade-to-2.4-in-progress doesn't provide any benefit in
> this case :-(

Right. That's also why we do not use this trapdoor in maintainer scripts.

> So it seems like having a dependency on a dummy apache2.2-common would
> be the sensible (if annoying) thing to do.

Thanks for this list. I'm short of time for the next 2-4 weeks, and
unless sf beats me with it I will address all the outstanding Apache
packaging issues then (or try to find a feasible solution at least).

-- 
with kind regards,
Arno Töll
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: