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

Bug#639290: upgrade from squeeze to wheezy fails on i386 (pre-depends loop)



Hi Niko,

On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 02:51:51PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 02:07:36AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > But before we start waffling on the implementation, I would like to have a
> > reproducible test case - for one thing, I'd like to see if wheezy's apt does
> > any better.  But I can't reproduce the problem in a clean squeeze i386
> > chroot.  Adam, can you provide a minimal package list that can be used to
> > reproduce the error?

> >  - revert libc's Breaks: on perl.  The original bug report causing this to
> >    be added suggests that the only known breakage is that using old perl on
> >    a system with new libc6 to *build* software that embeds perl will fail.
> >    If that's the case, I think that's not a very strong reason to use a
> >    Breaks at all since the main functionality of perl remains intact, and
> >    only one specific use case is broken.
> 
> This issue seem to be somewhat stalled ATM. As I'm the one who requested
> the problematic libc Breaks entry, I feel it's my responsibility to get
> it reverted.
> 
> Steve: are you OK with reverting it now or are you still looking for a
> reproducible test case for the apt bug?

Once I tried with a clean i386 debootstrap, Adam's test case was sufficient.
I have not yet tested to see whether wheezy's apt can handle this scenario;
I still will, but Michal's comment seems pretty decisive:

On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 06:08:26PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> I guess changing the dependencies so that apt can cope it the only
> reasonable way to deal with this for Wheezy.

> There is libapt-pkg-perl and when you have packages depending on that
> upgrading apt separately from perl is not possible.

That means telling users to just upgrade to the wheezy apt before
dist-upgrading is insufficient.  So I think that yes, we should revert the
breaks.

> (I still think we should have a Breaks entry somewhere, probably gcc,
>  but we have plenty of time to discuss and implement that afterwards.)

gcc seems like a reasonable place to do this.

Thanks,
-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: