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

Re: Processed: Critical problems on hppa and ia64 buildds



Luk Claes <luk@debian.org> wrote:

> Buildds using unauthenticated packages is quite normal unfortunately as
> incoming has still no proper authentication.

Okay, I wasn't aware of that - I didn't remember such warnings, and the
build logs I'd had looked at for comparison didn't have it.

> Getting tex-common in a broken state on the buildds is very probably a
> bug in your package and not one to rely on to break things further btw.
>
> Not amused.

Me neither.  Could you please show me where you find any indication that
there's a problem with tex-common or a texlive package?

Looking at 531581, the build log at 

https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?&pkg=matplotlib&ver=0.98.5.3-1&arch=hppa&stamp=1243891746&file=log

shows that we have

- two segfaults in dpkg while unpacking libgtk2.0-0 and libxine1-console

then the buildd decides to purge everything, and we encounter

- either a small bug in the dbus postinst script upon purge, or disk
  problems because the just-created /var/run/dbus is missing

- either a bug in tex-common or disk problems, since 05TeXmf.cnf is not
  present and hence tex-common cannot generate texmf.cnf; the following
  tex-related packages fail as a consequence of that

- a bug in libkpathsea4 or dpkg or disk problems, since there's no file
  libkpathsea.so.4 

- a bug in python-twisted-core's postinst, or a dpkg or disk problem

- matplotlib

- after that, a bug in dpkg: tex-common is removed and purged before (in
  that order: texlive-base, texlive-base-bin, texlive-common, lots of
  other texlive packages. And that is done although all of them depend
  on tex-common either directly, or by depending on texlive-common which
  in turn depends on tex-common.

I have no idea where anyone can see a reason that in this whole mess,
the main bug is the fact that tex-common somehow does not create
05TeXMF.cnf.  Or have bugs reported against each package that seems to
have a problem here? No, at least libkpathsea4 has an independent error,
but no bug report.  

If anyone shows me why I should think of a bug in a TeX package, then
I'll take that indication as a starting point for research. But right
now the only thing I have is that an ucf-controlled file of tex-common
which has been installed a gazillion of times on buildds without
problems is missing here. And that on a buildd which has lots of other
problems. 

And as for bug #530832, there's also a Dependency problem that seems to
be related to dpkg:

The following packages will be REMOVED:
  texlive-base
[...]
Removing texlive-base ...
/var/lib/dpkg/info/texlive-base.postrm: line 124: update-texmf-config: command not found
dpkg: error processing texlive-base (--remove):
 subprocess post-removal script returned error exit status 127
Errors were encountered while processing:
 texlive-base
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
apt-get failed.
Package installation failed
Trying to reinstall removed packages:
  /usr/bin/sudo /usr/bin/apt-get --purge $CHROOT_OPTIONS -q -y install texlive-base
Reading package lists...
Building dependency tree...
Reading state information...
texlive-base is already the newest version.
The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required:
  libpcre3
Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove them.
The following extra packages will be installed:
 [...] tex-common texlive-base-bin texlive-base-bin-doc
  texlive-common texlive-doc-base 

So texlive-base was installed, although tex-common and its other
dependencies weren't. I have no intention to change texlive-base to be
able to be removed (not purged!) when its dependencies are not present.



Regards, Frank
-- 
Dr. Frank Küster
Debian Developer (TeXLive)
VCD Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg, ADFC Miltenberg
B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg


Reply to: