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

Re: TL 2009 packages



Hi Norbert,

On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 01:49:02AM +0100, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Do, 03 Dez 2009, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> > Removing `diversion of /usr/bin/texdoc to /usr/bin/texdoc.notluatex by luatex'
> > dpkg-divert: rename involves overwriting `/usr/bin/texdoc' with
> >   different file `/usr/bin/texdoc.notluatex', not allowed
> > dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/luatex_0.46.0-3_amd64.deb (--unpack):
> >  subprocess pre-installation script returned error exit status 2
> 
> Huuu??? WHen did you download that 0.46.0-3, from where it is taken?

As I said, experimental.

> Can you do:
> - mkdir foo
> - dpkg-deb -e /var/cache/apt/archives/luatex_0.46.0-3_amd64.deb foo
> and check that the *preinst* in foo looks like:
> 
> case "$1" in
>   upgrade)
>     old_version=$2
>     if dpkg --compare-versions "$old_version" lt 0.46.0 ; then
>       # remove diversions
>       # should be: dpkg-divert --remove --package luatex --rename \
>       dpkg-divert --remove --package luatex \
>          --divert /usr/bin/texdoc.notluatex /usr/bin/texdoc
>       # should be: dpkg-divert --remove --package luatex --rename \
>       dpkg-divert --remove --package luatex \
>          --divert /usr/share/man/man1/texdoc.notluatex.1.gz \
>          /usr/share/man/man1/texdoc.1.gz
>     fi
>     ;;
> esac
> 
> There should be NO *--rename* !!!
> 
> If it is I would be surprised.

Don't be, preinst looks exactly like this.

> Anyway, the right version you need is 0.46.0-4, probably not compiled
> by now for i386.

I'm using amd64 here and no, 0.46.0-4 has the exact same problem.

> > Preparing to replace dpkg 1.14.25 (using .../dpkg_1.15.5.3_amd64.deb) ...
> > That's not exactly working out... :( Is there maybe a
> > luatex conflicts texlive-base (<< 2009)
> 
> No tht doesn't help.

Sadly, that's the best I can come up with right now.

> Is *anyone* reading this mailing list??? I have asked about this problem
> about 3 times, with BIG 
> 	HELP ...
> and there was no suggestion .... grmpfff sometimes I feel well ...

Well, I could've replied with "no clue" but that wouldn't have helped,
right? FWIW, I'm testing *all* packages, and as you can see, working on
lenny chroots as well to try full upgrades.

Sorry if it doesn't help!
Hauke

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: