Bug#221215: Bug#239061: Segfault when setting up glibc-doc

[GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>]

Lionel,

I didn't write important information previously that I tried to
reappear this bug on my "chroot woody" environment, but it was failed.
Because I could successfully install glibc-doc on my woody.

	celesta:/# dpkg -s dpkg | grep Version:
	Version: 1.9.21
	celesta:/# dpkg -i glibc-doc_2.3.2.ds1-11_all.deb 
	(Reading database ... 9054 files and directories currently installed.)
	Preparing to replace glibc-doc 2.3.2.ds1-11 (using glibc-doc_2.3.2.ds1-11_all.deb) ...
	Unpacking replacement glibc-doc ...
	Setting up glibc-doc (2.3.2.ds1-11) ...
	
	celesta:/# dpkg -i glibc-doc_2.3.2.ds1-13_all.deb 
	(Reading database ... 9054 files and directories currently installed.)
	Preparing to replace glibc-doc 2.3.2.ds1-11 (using glibc-doc_2.3.2.ds1-13_all.deb) ...
	Unpacking replacement glibc-doc ...
	Setting up glibc-doc (2.3.2.ds1-13) ...

	celesta:/# dpkg -s glibc-doc | grep Version:
	Version: 2.3.2.ds1-13

I tried to upgrade this chroot woody from woody to sarge with "apt-get
dist-upgrade" after installing woody's glibc-doc.  This bug was not
appeared.

At Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:18:23 +0200,
Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> >   (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 ;)

Did you confirm this bug was affected to other packages?
It shows a lot of packages:

	grep -r install-info /var/lib/dpkg/info | grep postinst 

> >   (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.

Did you confirm this bug?

At least the current upgrade does not induce this problem, I think we
don't need depends or conflicts.

Regards,
-- gotom