Bug#3060: problems with new sysklogd-1.3-3

[Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk>]

Martin Schulze writes ("Bug#3060: problems with new sysklogd-1.3-3"):
> Hallo Dirk!
> }Package: sysklogd
> }Version: 1.3-3
> }
> }I just installed the new sysklogd-1.3-3 fresh from master. There are several
> }problems with it.
> }
> }I had syslogd-1.3-2 installed (note the missing 'k'). After I installed the
> }new sysklogd-1.3-3, 'dpkg -l syslogd sysklogd' revealed that both versions
> }are installed.
>
> This is the correct result.

No, it isn't.  The correct result is that syslogd should be marked as
not installed.

Furthermore, sysklogd 1.3-3 is one revision older than the 1.3-4 which
is in Incoming/HOLD on master.  1.3-4 says:
 Package: sysklogd
 Conflicts: syslogd
 Replaces: syslogd
 Provides: syslogd

This is correct, and ought to get syslogd removed.

...
> }With some --force-<action> I cleaned the situation, but this package is
> }definitely not in stage that I would recommend for the 1.1 release. The
> }upgrade from one version to another just doesn't work well enough.
>
> This ONLY happens if there were both packags syslogd AND sysklogd
> installed. A long time ago I made the mistake in renaming the package
> back to its original name (which is sysklogd) before dpkg was able to
> notice this.
>
> The behaviour you describe is a result of this.
>
> The used mixture of Conflicts, Provides and Replaces has been
> coordinated with Ian Jackson. He knows dpkg best and probably would
> have told me if there was another way to get out of this.

I'm concerned that there is something odd going on here that I don't
understand.

Was there, for example, perhaps ever a sys[k]logd package which
attempted to modify /var/lib/dpkg/status directly ?

Dirk Eddelbuettel writes ("Bug#3060: problems with new sysklogd-1.3-3"):
...
> > This ONLY happens if there were both packags syslogd AND sysklogd
> > installed. A long time ago I made the mistake in renaming the
> > package back to its original name (which is sysklogd) before dpkg
> > was able to notice this.
> >
> > The behaviour you describe is a result of this.
> >
> > The used mixture of Conflicts, Provides and Replaces has been
> > coordinated with Ian Jackson. He knows dpkg best and probably would
> > have told me if there was another way to get out of this.
>
> I cannot believe that this situation (sysklogd plus fragments of syslogd
> installed, --force-* required in (re-)installations) is the best we can do
> here. Can't Ian J. and you figure out some new strategy to persuade dpkg to
> really forget about syslogd, the other package?

I don't understand how having an old sysklogd package installed would
stop dpkg from removing syslogd when you install the new sysklogd.

Dirk: can you please send me your /var/lib/dpkg/status ?

Thanks,
Ian.