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

Re: are packages with diversions not downgradeable?

On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 03:19 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 10:22:24AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 02:44 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > 
> > > As you can see, I ran into some problems when upgrading libxft-dev
> > > 2.1.2-5 (which used dpkg-divert) to libxft-dev 2.1.2-6 (which removes
> > > them), then downgrading to 2.1.2-5 and trying to re-upgrade to 2.1.2-6.
> > > 
> > > Am I using diversions wrong?  Is this a bug in dpkg-divert?
> > > 
> > dpkg 1.9 didn't rename files on dpkg-divert --remove unless --rename was
> > given, a mirror of the --add behaviour.
> > 
> > dpkg 1.10 unconditionally renames files, with no way to prevent it.
> > 
> > I guess what we need here is to either go back to the old behaviour, or
> > add a --no-rename option for preinst scripts.
> > 
> > I've tried both, and they seem to fix the problems for libxft-dev and
> > desktop-base.
> I'm delighted to hear it, as duplicate bug reports against libxft-dev
> continue to trickle in.
Heh, this was the reply I suggested you ignore a few weeks ago; whilst
it lets you step around the symptoms of the problem it doesn't really
fix it.

The problem is that dpkg doesn't take diversions into account when it
cleans up the package list after an upgrade, so leaves diverted files on
the disk if the upgraded package's equivalent file isn't diverted.

I have a proposed fix for this, but it's one of the nastier bits of code
and I'm not fully confident in my changes yet; I was planning to have a
hack on it over DebConf...

Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: