Bug#255269: marked as done (tetex-extra: handling of conffile "omega.map" confuses dpkg)
Your message dated Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:37:49 +0200
with message-id <20050717203749.GL2524@preusse>
and subject line Bug#255269: tetex-extra: conffile handling confuses dpkg
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)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 19 Jun 2004 21:59:49 +0000
>From ydirson@altern.org Sat Jun 19 14:59:49 2004
Return-path: <ydirson@altern.org>
Received: from smtp9.wanadoo.fr (mwinf0904.wanadoo.fr) [193.252.22.22]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1BbnsL-0007D9-00; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 14:59:49 -0700
Received: from bylbo.nowhere.earth (APuteaux-115-1-16-161.w81-51.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.51.82.161])
by mwinf0904.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP
id 74FC31800163; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 23:59:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from dwitch by bylbo.nowhere.earth with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 1Bbns1-0006OD-00; Sat, 19 Jun 2004 23:59:29 +0200
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 23:59:29 +0200
From: Yann Dirson <dirson@debian.org>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: tetex-extra: conffile handling confuses dpkg
Message-ID: <20040619215929.GA24495@bylbo.nowhere.earth>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Reportbug-Version: 2.61
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i
Sender: Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org>
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE,
RCVD_IN_DSBL autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
Package: tetex-extra
Version: 2.0.2-9
Severity: normal
At configure time I see the following. Looks like a usual behaviour we get
when a conffile gets moved and dpkg cannot know about the move, but here it
seems to show that dpkg believes I had manually removed omega.map and writes
a possibly-confusing warning.
Setting up tetex-extra (2.0.2-9) ...
Configuration file `/etc/texmf/dvips/omega.map'
==> Modified (by you or by a script) since installation.
==> Package distributor has shipped an updated version.
What would you like to do about it ? Your options are:
Y or I : install the package maintainer's version
N or O : keep your currently-installed version
D : show the differences between the versions
Z : background this process to examine the situation
The default action is to keep your current version.
*** omega.map (Y/I/N/O/D/Z) [default=N] ? d
--- /etc/texmf/dvips/omega.map 1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
+++ /etc/texmf/dvips/omega.map.dpkg-new 2004-06-18 13:42:43.000000000 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
[...]
*** omega.map (Y/I/N/O/D/Z) [default=N] ? i
dpkg: tetex-extra: warning - failed to link /etc/texmf/dvips/omega.map' to /etc/texmf/dvips/omega.map.dpkg-old': No such file or directory
Installing new version of config file /etc/texmf/dvips/omega.map ...
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i586)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.23-k6+preempt+acl
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=french
Versions of packages tetex-extra depends on:
ii dpkg 1.10.22 Package maintenance system for Deb
ii gsfonts 8.14-3 Fonts for the Ghostscript interpre
ii tetex-base 2.0.2-9 Basic library files of teTeX
ii tetex-bin 2.0.2-15 The teTeX binary files
ii ucf 1.06 Update Configuration File: preserv
-- no debconf information
--
Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org> |
Debian-related: <dirson@debian.org> | Support Debian GNU/Linux:
| Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratis
http://ydirson.free.fr/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/>
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 255269-done) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Jul 2005 20:38:22 +0000
>From hille42@web.de Sun Jul 17 13:38:22 2005
Return-path: <hille42@web.de>
Received: from smtp07.web.de [217.72.192.225]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1DuFu2-00081i-00; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:38:22 -0700
Received: from [213.7.10.123] (helo=preusse.amasol.de)
by smtp07.web.de with asmtp (WEB.DE 4.105 #297)
id 1DuFtX-0008AV-00
for 255269-done@bugs.debian.org; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:37:51 +0200
Received: by preusse.amasol.de (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:37:49 +0200
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:37:49 +0200
From: Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>
To: 255269-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#255269: tetex-extra: conffile handling confuses dpkg
Message-ID: <20050717203749.GL2524@preusse>
References: <20040619215929.GA24495@bylbo.nowhere.earth> <87659mv0hu.fsf@alhambra.bioz.unibas.ch>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <87659mv0hu.fsf@alhambra.bioz.unibas.ch>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Operating-System: CYGWIN_NT-5.0 1.5.18(0.132/4/2) i686
X-www.distributed.net: OGR-P2: 2 packets (66.74 stats units) [2.56 Mnodes/s]
X-Face: .n=jHnz:2pu0c0)ef]4O#1FE{Vak?h89!g7_#2+PzSRoIU[pJFNnz>gLhn}UMwv}4/j{X.. 2E+>U>P!`PYk
X-Confirmation-Request: yes
X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Hilmar Preusse" <hille42@web.de>
Sender: hille42@web.de
X-Sender: hille42@web.de
Delivered-To: 255269-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.8 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,
HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
On 20.06.04 Frank Küster (frank@debian.org) wrote:
Hi all,
> It was a buggy maintainer script that previously removed the map
> file. In order to resurrect it, we added a comment to it, so that
> dpkg will reinstall it. There's no way to resurrect it before dpkg
> acts on it (except by some debconf question and preinst action, but
> that would be overkill and trigger "debconf missuse" comlaints).
>
> The real bug is that dpkg does not say "This conffile is missing on
> your system", but just displays the standard "changed by you or a
> script" message, and tries to save away the non-existing file.
>
> Summary: There's nothing we can do about it; I think dpkg has yet
> bug reports regarding this behavior.
>
> This bug only applies to users that have been keeping track of
> testing or unstable, and is only triggered in one upgrade. I think
> we should keep the bug open until sarge is released - by then,
> versions between woody and sarge should have mostly disappeared.
> And I'm retitling it, so that people looking for problems with
> omega.map will find it.
>
OK, thanks. Doing so.
H.
--
sigmentation fault
Reply to: