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

Bug#76754: marked as done (apt: race when installing new packages that conflict with old ones)

Your message dated Sat, 15 Aug 2015 09:41:51 +0200
with message-id <20150815074151.GB14749@crossbow>
and subject line Re: Bug#76754: closed by David Kalnischkies <david@kalnischkies.de> (Re: apt: race when installing new packages that conflict with old ones)
has caused the Debian Bug report #76754,
regarding apt: race when installing new packages that conflict with old ones
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
76754: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=76754
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: apt
Version: 0.3.19
Severity: wishlist

When apt-get tries to install a new package which conflicts and provides an
older one, it removes it and then installs the new package with two separate
dpkg commands.  This creates a window where packages depending on the old
package may fail.  For example, when I ran apt-get through dselect today,
it removed xpm4g in favour of the new xpm library,

dpkg: xpm4g: dependency problems, but removing anyway as you request:
 xonix depends on libxpm4; however:
  Package libxpm4 is not installed.
  Package xpm4g which provides libxpm4 is to be removed.
 slashem depends on libxpm4; however:
  Package libxpm4 is not installed.
  Package xpm4g which provides libxpm4 is to be removed.
 xsok depends on libxpm4; however:
  Package libxpm4 is not installed.
  Package xpm4g which provides libxpm4 is to be removed.

etc...

After this removal and before the installation of the new package, mrtg's
cron job ran, and promptly failed as there were no valid libXpm.so.4 for
rateup to link with:

/usr/bin//rateup: error while loading shared libraries: libXpm.so.4: cannot open shared object file:+No such file or directory

PROBLEM: rateup died from Signal 0
 with Exit Value 127 when doing router 'publan'
 code was 32512, retcode was . If this happens all the time,
 you should probably investigate the cause. :-)

-- System Information
Debian Release: woody
Kernel Version: Linux gondor 2.2.17 #1 Mon Sep 11 22:22:16 EST 2000 i586 unknown

Versions of the packages apt depends on:
ii  libc6          2.1.97-1       GNU C Library: Shared libraries and Timezone
ii  libstdc++2.10  2.95.2-14      The GNU stdc++ library

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 10:08:25AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 07:42:14PM +0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 04:24:11PM +1100, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au wrote:
> > > When apt-get tries to install a new package which conflicts and provides an
> > > older one, it removes it and then installs the new package with two separate
> > > dpkg commands.  This creates a window where packages depending on the old
> > > package may fail.  For example, when I ran apt-get through dselect today,
> > 
> > Yes, but this is required to happen. The Conflicts-relation is defined
> > to require the complete removal of the package the conflict is against
> > before the new package can even be unpacked.
> > 
> > So, while unfortunately it is the best apt can do based on the request,
> > so closing as not a bug.
> 
> What you can do is deconfigure the old package, install the new
> package replacing the files in the old package (the new package
> should probably have a Replaces header too), and then remove the
> remaining bits of the old package.

Sure you can, but this isn't what has to be done for Conflict-relations
according to Debian policy. "Don't shoot the messenger" applies here
I guess. If you want this behavior use Breaks, which has less strict
requirements and can work the way you describe it.

Reference:
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-conflicts


So, as much as I hate pingpong, closing again…


Best regards

David Kalnischkies

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: