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

Bug#239061: Segfault when setting up glibc-doc



On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 07:50:10PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Sat, 20 Mar 2004 17:37:33 +0100,
> Josep Lladonosa i Capell wrote:

>> Setting up glibc-doc (2.3.2.ds1-11) ...
>> /var/lib/dpkg/info/glibc-doc.postinst: line 19:  7661 Segmentation fault
>> in
>> stall-info --quiet --section "GNU C library functions" "GNU C library
>> functions"
>>  /usr/share/info/libc-dir-add.info

>> The problem: dpkg version. Stable version was 1.9.21.  I've
>> upgraded 'manually' to latest dpkg (1.10.20), and glibc-doc could
>> be set up...

>> Perhaps a dependency has to be added...

> Yes, "#220841: dpkg: install-info segmentation fault" is the actual
> problem.

> But I dislike adding Depends or Conflicts because:

>   (1) install-info is included in dpkg and various packages use this
>       file.  But such packages does not depends on dpkg because dpkg
>       is essential required package.  I don't like to add depends:
>       dpkg.

The dependency is superfluous only if unversioned.

>   (2) Moreover, various package which use install-info does not handle
>       this problem.  I don't like to increase depends or conflicts
>       entries for this kind of bug.

If the other packages don't trigger the bug, they don't need to depend
on a recent enough version of dpkg. And if they do trigger the bug,
because they do it wrong is not a reason to do it wrong, too ;)

>   (3) This problem is occured when your dpkg is old (woody) and you
>       want to install sarge's glibc-doc.  I wonder we need to support
>       such situation.

I think we should. People mixing stable and testing/unstable, or more
simply doing stage-wise upgrades is relatively common. We should give
them the hint that dpkg should be upgraded first.

>  Upgrading from woody to sarge is concerned item, but I think dpkg
>  should also be upgraded at the same time.

The versioned depends would guarantee that dpkg would be upgraded
before glibc-doc.

-- 
Lionel



Reply to: