Re: [Bug 122863] Re: package texlive-base-bin 2007-11 failed to install/upgrade: post-installation script spawns thousands of processes
- To: Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at>
- Cc: Bug 122863 <122863@bugs.launchpad.net>, debian-tex-maint@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: [Bug 122863] Re: package texlive-base-bin 2007-11 failed to install/upgrade: post-installation script spawns thousands of processes
- From: Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 22:55:38 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 87fy47n8s5.fsf@riesling.zuerich.kuesterei.ch>
- In-reply-to: <87sl89494r.fsf@riesling.zuerich.kuesterei.ch> (Frank Küster's message of "Sat\, 30 Jun 2007 19\:58\:28 +0200")
- References: <20070628173418.31008.29930.malonedeb@gandwana.ubuntu.com> <20070630100428.1478.89176.malone@gandwana.ubuntu.com> <20070628173418.31008.29930.malonedeb@gandwana.ubuntu.com> <20070629125606.19858.84774.malone@gangotri.ubuntu.com> <20070630103411.GA2069@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> <87sl89494r.fsf@riesling.zuerich.kuesterei.ch>
Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> wrote:
> Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> wrote:
>
>> What wonders me is that this did happen at all.
>>
>> As far as I see, since the tex-common 1.8 was introduced definitely
>> *before* the tried upgrade, it should have been selected for the
>> upgrade and the whole stuff shouldn't have happened.
>>
>> Frank, do you have any explanation for this? And whether this could
>> happen to etch->lenny upgrade, too?
>
> I don't really have an explanation.
One morething which is strange is that the original reporter said that
there were *two* fork bombs after each other, and that the first was
"related" to mktexlsr, but still there were *etex* processes running.
This I cannot explain anyhow, I assume that the bug reporter mixed
something up, please ask him to clarify that (I'm in a hurry, leaving
for holiday, and have no time to look up the launchpad bug and
reporter's e-mail address, sorry).
> I'm not sure what texlive and tex-common versions feisty had, but
> if I assume it resembles sarge (tex-common 1.0*), *then* I do not have
> an explanation.
We should really try to get exact version numbers (aptitude log?)
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Reply to: