Bug#803306: "'/usr/share/doc/libreoffice-dev' contains files not owned by package libreoffice-dev, cannot switch to symlink" on upgrades with libreoffice-dev-doc installed
Package: libreoffice,libreoffice-dev-doc
Version: 1:5.0.3~rc1-2
Severity: serious
Hi again,
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 04:28:20PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> # time apt-get dist-upgrade
> [...]
> Preparing to unpack .../libreoffice-dev_1%3a5.0.3~rc1-2_armhf.deb ...
> <wait... there it runs dir_to_symlink which runs the find. The find and the
> apparent dpkg -L of each file found is sloooow...>
> <stopped caring to wait for it to finish and just decided to send the mail.>
>
> Yeah, this defnitely is unfortunate and unexpected, but it's not a hang, dpkg
> does its job.
>
> > Versions of packages libreoffice-dev suggests:
> > ii libmythes-dev 2:1.2.4-1
> > ii libreoffice-dev-doc 1:5.0.2-1
>
> OK, now we at least now you *do* have a big tree under /usr/share/doc/libreoffice-dev/docs.
> As I thought.
OK, and after that wait finishes I get:
Preparing to unpack .../libreoffice-dev_1%3a5.0.3~rc1-2_armhf.deb ...
dpkg-maintscript-helper: error: directory '/usr/share/doc/libreoffice-dev' contains files not owned by package libreoffice-dev, cannot switch to symlink
dpkg: error processing archive /var/cache/apt/archives/libreoffice-dev_1%3a5.0.3~rc1-2_armhf.deb (--unpack):
subprocess new pre-installation script returned error exit status 1
[...]
Errors were encountered while processing:
/var/cache/apt/archives/libreoffice-dev_1%3a5.0.3~rc1-2_armhf.deb
/var/cache/apt/archives/libreoffice_1%3a5.0.3~rc1-2_armhf.deb
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
real 32m0.179s
user 14m19.360s
sys 11m3.510s
(same error for libreoffice)
so there's actual breakage there, too. :( Filing a new bug for this...
(apt-get -f install complains again about libreoffice and runs into the
find "hang" again.)
I tested dist-upgrades; but apparently not with -dev or -dev-doc installed... :/
Sounds like we need a Breaks: or Conflicts: or somesuch to get a clean
upgrade...
Regards,
Rene
Reply to: