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

Bug#236256: xbase-clients: installer fails

On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 06:07:17PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
>  > I would try:
>  > 
>  > $ dpkg -P --force-depends xlibs
>  > $ apt-get install xlibs
> This has made no difference.


How about:
$ dpkg -P --force-depends xlibs
# dpkg -S etc/X11/xkb/xkbcomp

If that's not owned by any package, then either:

1) You have found a bug in dpkg;
2) You created it yourself;
3) Some very badly-behaved script created it.

I'm pretty sure I can rule out 3) for the xfree86 packages dating back
to the version released in potato or before.

There are known problems with dpkg's conffile handling.  For example,
Scott James Remnant recently fixed one which had been around for a long
time indeed:

  dpkg (1.10.21) unstable; urgency=low

    * Fix incorrect linked list node removal code that caused every second
      shared or diverted conffile to be deleted by dpkg.
      Closes: #10879, #33046, #47267, #90623, #98210, #109691, #146167.
      Closes: #155456, #204275.

In any case, there is no obvious right thing to do if someone has stuck
a plain file where a package expects to place a conffile.  Just
unconditionally deleting it is a good way to get angry bug reports.

In situations like this, the user is expected to inspect the situation
and make an informed decision.  If your /etc/X11/xkb/xkbcomp looks
useless to you, delete it and try to install the package again.

If there is a bug here, I'm not sure it is one I can fix.  You'll need
to tell me what you think the package is doing wrong.

G. Branden Robinson                |     "Why do we have to hide from the
Debian GNU/Linux                   |      police, Daddy?"
branden@debian.org                 |     "Because we use vi, son.  They use
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |      emacs."

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: