Bug#755290: [libreoffice-base] duplicated files with libreoffice-common
severity 755290 important
tag 755290 + moreinfo
thanks
Hi,
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 06:08:13PM +0200, Riccardo Magliocchetti wrote:
> Unpacking libreoffice-common (1:4.3.0~rc3-1) over (1:4.2.5-1) ...
> dpkg: error processing archive
> /var/cache/apt/archives/libreoffice-common_1%3a4.3.0~rc3-1_all.deb
> (--unpack):
> trying to overwrite '/usr/lib/libreoffice/share/basic/script.xlc',
> which is also in package libreoffice-base 1:4.3.0~rc3-1
> dpkg-deb: error: subprocess paste was killed by signal (Broken pipe)
What did you do to "upgrade"? All dist-upgrade attempts I did work fine.
> Looking at debian/rules
>
> 2283 mv $(PKGDIR)-common/$(OODIR)/share/basic/Access2Base \
> 2284 $(PKGDIR)-base/$(OODIR)/share/basic
> 2285 cp $(PKGDIR)-common/$(OODIR)/share/basic/dialog.xlc \
> 2286 $(PKGDIR)-base/$(OODIR)/share/basic
> 2287 cp $(PKGDIR)-common/$(OODIR)/share/basic/script.xlc \
> 2288 $(PKGDIR)-base/$(OODIR)/share/basic
>
> these cp should be mv instead?
No, they shouldn't.
You didn't look at the part exactly after that part:
t=`mktemp -q`; grep -v Access2Base $(PKGDIR)-common/$(OODIR)/share/basic/dialog.xlc > \
$$t && mv $$t $(PKGDIR)-common/$(OODIR)/share/basic/dialog.xlc && rm -f $$t
t=`mktemp -q`; grep -v Access2Base $(PKGDIR)-common/$(OODIR)/share/basic/script.xlc > \
$$t && mv $$t $(PKGDIR)-common/$(OODIR)/share/basic/script.xlc && rm -f $$t
-common has that "Basic scripts registry" without Access2Base, -base the copy
with Access2Base. Thus the cp of the "original" (with Access2Base) and then
"fixing" up the other one.
And -base diverts it away.
So *something* doesn't work with the diversions in some cases but I followed
the instructions 1:1 afaics.
I see if [ upgrade != "$1" ] || dpkg --compare-versions "$2" lt 1:4.2.5~rc1-1; then in preinst, the version is probably wrong (did in in 4.2.5 first then
reverted that and did it in 4.3 only. Maybe fixing that fixes this bug, although
reading https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ap-pkg-diversions.html it
seems the version check is just for cosmetics...)
Regards,
Rene
Reply to: