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

Bug#140460: Bug#172517: Bug#140460: tetex-extra: it won't install, config fails - additional info from cont-en.log



From: Gaetano Paolone <bigpaul@debian.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#172517: Bug#140460: tetex-extra: it won't install, config fails - additional info from cont-en.log
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:47:59 +0100

> my debian/ directory does not contain conffiles file anymore.
> I removed it since I had to use configuration files and
> not conffiles.
...
> So please check out if there is something I should do.

My quick investigation:

When "export DH_COMPAT=3", every files under /etc are registered
automatically as conffiles and you did these strange(?) handling
of 94alml.cnf in rules;

=====================
        cp etc/texmf/texmf.d/94alml.cnf debian/alml/usr/share/alml/
        mkdir -p debian/alml/etc/texmf/texmf.d/
        mkdir -p debian/alml/etc/sgml/
        cp etc/texmf/texmf.d/94alml.cnf debian/alml/etc/texmf/texmf.d/
=====================

that is, you installed 94alml.cnf into /etc/texmf/texmf.d/
and also installed into /usr/share/alml/ which would be handled
in postinst as follows;

=====================
if [ ! -f /etc/texmf/texmf.d/94alml.cnf ] ; then
        cp /usr/share/alml/94alml.cnf /etc/texmf/texmf.d
fi
=====================

This is nonsense, isn't this?

Also in postinst I found very strange statement;

=====================
if [ -x update-texmf ] ; then update-texmf -v ; fi


# teTeX reconfiguration due to 94Alml file                                      
update-texmf
texconfig init
=====================

update-texmf is called twice(!), and [ -x update-texmf ] should
be [ -x /usr/sbin/update-texmf ]

In postrm there is also same kind of mistake ([ -x update-texmf ]).
And 94alml.cnf should be updated, perhaps.

Please check more carefully, please.

Thanks for your maintenance.

-- 
 Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
 Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@debian.org>
 Department of Math., Tokushima Univ.



Reply to: