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

Re: Is this RC: "postrm remove" assumes Depended-on packages are configured and fails (was: Bug#403641: tetex-base: postrm fails if just unpackaged.)

severity 403641 important

On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 07:36:10PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> do you consider the following scenario release-critical?  If yes, we
> have more than one RC bug:

> - $packagemanager install B X
> - package A is unpacked
> - package B which Depends: A is unpacked
> - package X which is unrelated is tried to unpack, but fails (e.g. a
>   file conflict
> - $packagmanager starts removing all new packages

> - the postrm of B is called with "remove" and fails since it assumes
>   that A is configured and uses commands which fail

> This happened with tetex-base on a build, but the problem exists in all
> packages that use dh_installtex with any other options than common
> debhelper ones.

> The Policy document is a bit misleading in this respect, I have filed a
> bug about it (no number yet), since it doesn't mention any difference
> between "relying on being present" and "relying on being configured".
> Therefore I suspect that many more packages suffer from this problem.
> And actually each command used in any "postrm remove" can become
> dependent on "configuredness" by later uploads of the depended-on
> package, so this is a general problem for all types of packages.

As might be obvious from my reply to the policy discussion, I don't think
this is release-critical, no. :)  Downgrading accordingly; Andi has
unblocked the new version of the package anyway which handles this case, so
this is more or less a formality at this point.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Reply to: