Bug#401484: python-apt: Upgrading python2.4 fails complaining about apt/__init__.py
Package: python-apt
Version: 0.6.19
Severity: normal
When I install an updated version of the python packages (as part of normal
system updating with aptitude), the dpkg run fails complaining about
"already exists: /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/apt/__init__.py ->
/usr/share/pycentral/...../__init__.py" .
Manually deleting all files in /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/apt/ allows
dpkg to proceed (i.e. dpkg --configure --pending no longer fails).
I suspect the offending files may be leftovers from older package versions.
I am actually unsure if this is a bug in apt-listchanges, python-apt,
python-central or a core python2.4 package, but python-apt seems the most
likely candidate since it apparently owns that file.
I have experienced this specific failure in multiple etch chroots on this
computer, some of which use the x86_64 architecture, while others run i386
like the one used to file this report (all share the same kernel and
hardware).
I hope someone can track down and fix this bug before it gets unleashed unto
the world as part of an etch release.
--
DDT may indirectly have been the most influential debugger ever released :-)
-Q
A>USER 1
A>PIP
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 4.0
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (450, 'unstable'), (400, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /basnxt32/bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.17jbj3.4-18
Locale: LANG=en_DK.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_DK.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Versions of packages python-apt depends on:
ii apt [libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6-3. 0.6.46.2 Advanced front-end for dpkg
ii apt-utils [libapt-inst-libc6 0.6.46.2 APT utility programs
ii libc6 2.3.6.ds1-8 GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii libgcc1 1:4.1.1-19 GCC support library
ii libstdc++6 4.1.1-19 The GNU Standard C++ Library v3
ii python 2.4.4-1 An interactive high-level object-o
ii python-central 0.5.12 register and build utility for Pyt
python-apt recommends no packages.
-- no debconf information
--
This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings,
do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may
indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue.
Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any.
Reply to: