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

Bug#344887: marked as done (Upgrade woody->sarge can fail in some cases)

Your message dated Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:43:42 +0200
with message-id <20070730134342.GA3700@PC23>
and subject line Bug#344887: Upgrade woody->sarge can fail in some cases
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: tetex-bin
Version: 2.0.2-30
Severity: normal

Hi,

this is a spin off from #342247. The submitter refused to replace his
hand crafted config files by these from the package, which caused his
upgrade to fail. I've experienced similar problems, upon upgrading
from woody to sarge but didn't bother to file a bug, as I'm a teTeX
maintainer myself.
Frank Küster told me in #342247 that I should file a bug as we (the
Debian teTeX maintainers) believed we would have put some code into
our package scripts, which should have avoided #342247. Unfortunetely
it did not help. I had two points of failure:

1. I refused to replace the changed language.dat by that one from the
maintainers. The old one referenced the hyph. patterns czhyph2e.tex,
which does not exist any more in teTeX 2.0. Hence the build of all
formats having hyph. patterns failed.

2. I refused to replace the changed 05TeXMF. The code, which should
have introduced VARTEXMF seemed to fail. Hence updmap.cfg was not
found.

Frank told me, the first case is to hard to handle -> out of luck.
We believed we've handeled the second case in the postinst scripts.
He published a guildline, which should be done:

"I won't have time to investigate this now, but here's what I think
should be done:

- Check which packages installed files in your texmf.d.tar.bz2

- install those packages in a woody pbuilder

- replace texmf.d by the contents of your tar.bz2

- make preinst and postinst scripts use "set -x", e.g. with the
  contol-overrides mechanism

- Do the upgrade...
"

AFAICS the only package, which put files into my texmf.d was xmltex.

-- 
sigmentation fault

Attachment: texmf.d.tar.bz2
Description: Binary data


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 12.10.06 Frank Küster (frank@kuesterei.ch) wrote:
> Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de> wrote:

Hi,

> > 2. I refused to replace the changed 05TeXMF. The code, which should
> > have introduced VARTEXMF seemed to fail. Hence updmap.cfg was not
> > found.
> >
> > Frank told me, the first case is to hard to handle -> out of luck.
> > We believed we've handeled the second case in the postinst scripts.
> > He published a guildline, which should be done:
> >
> > "I won't have time to investigate this now, but here's what I think
> > should be done:
> >
> > - Check which packages installed files in your texmf.d.tar.bz2
> >
> > - install those packages in a woody pbuilder
> >
> > - replace texmf.d by the contents of your tar.bz2
> >
> > - make preinst and postinst scripts use "set -x", e.g. with the
> >   contol-overrides mechanism
> >
> > - Do the upgrade...
> > "
> >
> > AFAICS the only package, which put files into my texmf.d was xmltex.
> 
> It would be really nice if someone would take the time and investigate
> this...
> 
Seemed nobody could hear you. Yesterday I perfomed my sarge -> etch
upgrade and the test base is probably dead now. Guess what: I again
had problems during the tetex-* upgrade, but these were completely
home made. I'm closing that bug now....

H.
-- 
sigmentation fault

--- End Message ---
Reply to: