Bug#373212: marked as done (policy: postinst doesn't document typical abort-remove case)
Your message dated Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:43:04 -0500
with message-id <87ac89c4on.fsf@glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com>
and subject line policy: postinst abort-remove without in-favour not allowed by maintscript templates
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.13.19
Severity: minor
Tags: patch
The postinstall script includes comments, which might reasonably be
used as documentation for the maintainer script interface. However,
the postinstall script has only
# If prerm fails during replacement due to conflict:
# <postinst> abort-remove in-favour <new-package> <version>
But not the typical "abort-remove" case.
--- /var/lib/dpkg/info/dpkg.postinst 2006-05-04 07:09:34.000000000 -0400
+++ /tmp/dpkg.postinst 2006-06-06 17:05:08.000000000 -0400
@@ -8,6 +8,9 @@
# If prerm fails during upgrade or fails on failed upgrade:
# <old-postinst> abort-upgrade <new-version>
#
+# If prerm fails during removal:
+# <old-postinst> abort-remove
+#
# If prerm fails during deconfiguration of a package:
# <postinst> abort-deconfigure in-favour <new-package> <version>
# removing <old-package> <version>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
On 13 Jun 2006, Justin Pryzby told this:
> I've been reading more thorougly about the dpkg maintainer script
> interface. I noticed that the neither the dpkg maintscript comments
> nor your maintscript templates allow for the postinst "abort-remove"
> case which is called with only a single parameter (instead of $2 =
> "in-favour"). I've filed #372145 against dpkg to fix the comments.
> The template files used should be updated too, especially for the
> policy package, since they are a good reference; I'd like to patch
> dh_make shortly to use some combination of your code and dpkg
> comments.
Err, I am not sure this belongs to policy, which does not have
any "maintscript templates". Policy does document the call
correctly, so I am closing this report.
manoj
--
Different all twisty a of in maze are you, passages little.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--- End Message ---
Reply to: