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

Bug#484167: [Help] Re: Bug#484167: cdd-common: missing directory when installing

On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 08:42:36AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Jeffrey Austen wrote:
> >Could it be because
> >/usr/share/menu/cdd-menu is before /etc/cdd/cdd.conf in the
> >file list?
> This should not be IMHO.
> >Here is something else I tried which shows the error
> >occurs during the unpack phase, even if unpacking twice in a row.
> >
> >purge package then
> ># dpkg --unpack /var/cache/apt/archives/cdd-common_0.5.1_all.deb
> >Selecting previously deselected package cdd-common.
> >(Reading database ... 133829 files and directories currently
> >installed.)
> >Unpacking cdd-common (from .../cdd-common_0.5.1_all.deb) ...
> >Processing triggers for menu ...
> Ahh, I think here is the problem.  I just purged my cdd-common and
> can now reproduce this.  I'm afraid that the new trigger feature of
> dpkg is causing this problem.  If I understood things right the
> trigger feature should cause to build menus *after* packages are
> installed, but obviosely it causes the contrary and starts calling
> the menu building stuff in the middle of installation process which
> somehow leads to undefined results if not all files are installed
> correctly.
> While it would be easily possible to verify that /etc/cdd/cdd.conf
> exists inside /usr/share/menu/cdd-menu I would have to do some
> reasonable action in this case which would be to throw an error
> because this should definitely not happen and thus I rather think
> that either the menu package is broken because of working at the
> wrong point in time or the dpkg trigger feature does not properly.

Hello Andreas, I suggest to keep with the spirit of policy and simply

if ! -f /etc/cdd/cdd.conf then exit 0; fi
at the start of /usr/share/menu/cdd-menu.

This should be sufficient as long as you run update-menus in the
postinst which is the case.

Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Reply to: