Ubuntu
tetex-base package

tetex-base: dies when /usr/local/ read-only

Bug #25628 reported by Debian Bug Importer
4
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
tetex-base (Debian)
Fix Released
Unknown
tetex-base (Ubuntu)
Fix Released
High
Unassigned

Bug Description

Automatically imported from Debian bug report #338638 http://bugs.debian.org/338638

See original description
Revision history for this message
Debian Bug Importer (debzilla) wrote :

Automatically imported from Debian bug report #338638 http://bugs.debian.org/338638

Revision history for this message
Debian Bug Importer (debzilla) wrote :
Download full text (4.9 KiB)

Message-Id: <email address hidden>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:10:00 +0000
From: Andrew Stribblehill <email address hidden>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <email address hidden>
Subject: tetex-base: dies when /usr/local/ read-only

Package: tetex-base
Version: 2.0.2c-8
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 9.1.2

Trying to upgrade from 20.2c-8 to 3.0.10:

dpkg: tetex-base: dependency problems, but removing anyway as you request:
 tetex-bin depends on tetex-base.
(Reading database ... 98267 files and directories currently installed.)
Removing tetex-base ...
rm: cannot remove `/usr/local/share/texmf/ls-R': Read-only file system
dpkg: error processing tetex-base (--remove):
 subprocess pre-removal script returned error exit status 1
Errors were encountered while processing:
 tetex-base
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
Ack! Something bad happened while installing packages. Trying to recover:
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of tetex-extra:
 tetex-extra depends on tetex-bin (>= 2.99); however:
  Version of tetex-bin on system is 2.0.2-31.
dpkg: error processing tetex-extra (--configure):
 dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
Errors were encountered while processing:
 tetex-extra

-- Package-specific info:
######################################
 List of ls-R files

-rw-r--r-- 1 latex latex 9789 May 19 11:14 /usr/local/share/texmf/ls-R
-rw-rw-r-- 1 root users 853 Nov 11 06:29 /var/lib/texmf/ls-R
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 29 Aug 8 11:22 /usr/share/texmf/ls-R -> /var/lib/texmf/ls-R-TEXMFMAIN

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.13-git6
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)

Versions of packages tetex-base depends on:
ii debconf 1.4.58 Debian configuration management sy
ii dpkg 1.13.11.0.1 package maintenance system for Deb
ii texinfo 4.7-2.2 Documentation system for on-line i
ii ucf 2.003 Update Configuration File: preserv

Versions of packages tetex-base recommends:
pn tetex-doc <none> (no description available)

Versions of packages tetex-bin depends on:
ii debconf 1.4.58 Debian configuration management sy
ii debianutils 2.15 Miscellaneous utilities specific t
ii dpkg 1.13.11.0.1 package maintenance system for Deb
ii ed 0.2-20 The classic unix line editor
ii libc6 2.3.5-7 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libgcc1 1:4.0.2-3 GCC support library
ii libice6 6.8.2.dfsg.1-10 Inter-Client Exchange library
ii libkpathsea3 2.0.2-31 path search library for teTeX (run
ii libpaper1 1.1.14-3 Library for handling paper charact
ii libpng12-0 1.2.8rel-5 PNG library - runtime
ii libsm6 6.8.2.dfsg.1-10 X Window Sys...

Read more...

Revision history for this message
In , Frank Küster (frank-debian) wrote : [Help] How to fix a buggy prerm script in sarge? (was: Bug#338638: tetex-base: dies when /usr/local/ read-only)

tags 338638 help
thanks

Hi all,

we just received a bug report that is caused by a buggy prerm script
in the package in sarge (it fails because it doesn't handle read-only
/usr/local properly). Is there any way to fix this, except documenting
it in the release notes?

And on a related thought, if the bug was in the postrm script, would it
be acceptable that the preinst script of the new version edits
/var/lib/dpkg/info/tetex-base.postrm?

Regards, Frank

P.S. Andrew, are you able to find a workaround yourself, or do you need
help?

Andrew Stribblehill <email address hidden> wrote:

> Package: tetex-base
> Version: 2.0.2c-8
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Policy 9.1.2
>
> Trying to upgrade from 20.2c-8 to 3.0.10:
>
> dpkg: tetex-base: dependency problems, but removing anyway as you request:
> tetex-bin depends on tetex-base.
> (Reading database ... 98267 files and directories currently installed.)
> Removing tetex-base ...
> rm: cannot remove `/usr/local/share/texmf/ls-R': Read-only file system
> dpkg: error processing tetex-base (--remove):
> subprocess pre-removal script returned error exit status 1
> Errors were encountered while processing:
> tetex-base

Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer

Revision history for this message
In , sean finney (seanius) wrote :

hi frank,

On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 12:25:01PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> we just received a bug report that is caused by a buggy prerm script
> in the package in sarge (it fails because it doesn't handle read-only
> /usr/local properly). Is there any way to fix this, except documenting
> it in the release notes?

assuming that this is only a problem with removals (and not upgrades too,
in which case the problem is quite a bit more complicated), i think the
best way to fix such a package would be to work with the release managers
to make sure that a fixed version makes it into a sarge point-release
via proposed-updates.

> And on a related thought, if the bug was in the postrm script, would it
> be acceptable that the preinst script of the new version edits
> /var/lib/dpkg/info/tetex-base.postrm?

i think you will probably get a resounding "no" from the release teams
in question, from my experience with a similar problem wrt the
woody->sarge path for mysql.

 sean

--

Revision history for this message
Debian Bug Importer (debzilla) wrote :

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 12:25:01 +0100
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <email address hidden>
To: debian-devel <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>, Andrew Stribblehill <email address hidden>
Subject: [Help] How to fix a buggy prerm script in sarge? (was: Bug#338638:
 tetex-base: dies when /usr/local/ read-only)

tags 338638 help
thanks

Hi all,

we just received a bug report that is caused by a buggy prerm script
in the package in sarge (it fails because it doesn't handle read-only
/usr/local properly). Is there any way to fix this, except documenting
it in the release notes?=20=20

And on a related thought, if the bug was in the postrm script, would it
be acceptable that the preinst script of the new version edits
/var/lib/dpkg/info/tetex-base.postrm?=20

Regards, Frank

P.S. Andrew, are you able to find a workaround yourself, or do you need
help?=20

Andrew Stribblehill <email address hidden> wrote:

> Package: tetex-base
> Version: 2.0.2c-8
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Policy 9.1.2
>
> Trying to upgrade from 20.2c-8 to 3.0.10:
>
> dpkg: tetex-base: dependency problems, but removing anyway as you request:
> tetex-bin depends on tetex-base.
> (Reading database ... 98267 files and directories currently installed.)
> Removing tetex-base ...
> rm: cannot remove `/usr/local/share/texmf/ls-R': Read-only file system
> dpkg: error processing tetex-base (--remove):
> subprocess pre-removal script returned error exit status 1
> Errors were encountered while processing:
> tetex-base

Regards, Frank
--=20
Frank K=FCster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Z=FCrich
Debian Developer

Revision history for this message
Debian Bug Importer (debzilla) wrote :

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 06:32:50 -0500
From: sean finney <email address hidden>
To: Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <email address hidden>
Cc: debian-devel <email address hidden>,
 <email address hidden>, Andrew Stribblehill <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: [Help] How to fix a buggy prerm script in sarge? (was: Bug#338638: tetex-base: dies
 when /usr/local/ read-only)

--xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

hi frank,

On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 12:25:01PM +0100, Frank K=FCster wrote:
> we just received a bug report that is caused by a buggy prerm script
> in the package in sarge (it fails because it doesn't handle read-only
> /usr/local properly). Is there any way to fix this, except documenting
> it in the release notes? =20

assuming that this is only a problem with removals (and not upgrades too,
in which case the problem is quite a bit more complicated), i think the
best way to fix such a package would be to work with the release managers
to make sure that a fixed version makes it into a sarge point-release
via proposed-updates.

> And on a related thought, if the bug was in the postrm script, would it
> be acceptable that the preinst script of the new version edits
> /var/lib/dpkg/info/tetex-base.postrm?=20

i think you will probably get a resounding "no" from the release teams
in question, from my experience with a similar problem wrt the
woody->sarge path for mysql.

 sean

--=20

--xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDdyRiynjLPm522B0RAtwjAJ0SrUPfSXWH9GuaBdqnvsyRpv3gqACfRJ9u
i1LSUhuNCrBkon88rB416qw=
=ZyXe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V--

Revision history for this message
In , Frank Küster (frank-kuesterei) wrote : Upload of tetex-base to stable

Hi,

I have just uploaded tetex-base_2.0.2c-8sarge1 to stable to address bug
#338638. This bug:

- is RC because it is a violation of the handling of /usr/local as
  described in Policy 9.1.2, and because it causes the prerm script of
  tetex-base to fail in a non-recoverable way

- cannot be solved by adding an appropriate "failed-upgrade" section to
  a newer version of tetex-base.

  The reason is that tetex-base_3.0-* in sid has file conflicts with
  tetex-bin in sarge (and therefore declares "Conflicts: tetex-bin (<=
  2.99-7)"), while tetex-bin_3.0 depends on functionality, specifically
  TeX input files, provided by tetex-base only since version 3.0-4.

  To solve this upgrade problem, apt(itude) will first remove tetex-base
  ("Dependency problems prevent..., but removing anyway as you
  requested"), then unpack the updated tetex-bin package and then unpack
  the new tetex-base. Because of this solution, from dpkg's point of
  view the buggy tetex-base version in sarge is not removed during an
  upgrade, but just on its own, and there is no "new prerm" to call with
  "failed upgrade".

A hypothetical alternative solution to an upload to stable would be to
take measures to make apt(itude) choose a different solution (namely
removing tetex-bin with --force-depends, unpacking tetex-base on top of
the old version, reinstalling tetex-bin). But AFAIK there is no way to
relyably do this, because apt(itude)'s choice depends on the installed
(and selected?) packages that depend on both packages, and may change
depending on the particular installation.

I hope that you consider this upgrade for a stable point release. Below
is the interdiff between the diff.gz files; we have also an added
vietnamese debconf translation for the version in sarge which could be
added, too.

Thank you in advance,
Frank

$ interdiff tetex-base_2.0.2c-8.diff tetex-base_2.0.2c-8sarge1.diff
diff -u tetex-base-2.0.2c/debian/changelog tetex-base-2.0.2c/debian/changelog
--- tetex-base-2.0.2c/debian/changelog
+++ tetex-base-2.0.2c/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
+tetex-base (2.0.2c-8sarge1) stable; urgency=low
+
+ * Do not fail in the prerm script when the ls-R file is on a read-only
+ filesystem (closes: #338638). This fix is critical and should go into
+ sarge, because it is needed to be able to upgrade to tetex-base_3.0 on
+ affected systems.
+
+ -- Frank KÃŒster <email address hidden> Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:44:42 +0100
+
 tetex-base (2.0.2c-8) unstable; urgency=low

   * Add documentation for the Sueterlin fonts (ancient german handwriting)
diff -u tetex-base-2.0.2c/debian/prerm tetex-base-2.0.2c/debian/prerm
--- tetex-base-2.0.2c/debian/prerm
+++ tetex-base-2.0.2c/debian/prerm
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@

   # remove ls-R file, so that the directory can be removed.
   LOCALTEXMF=/usr/local/share/texmf
- rm -f $LOCALTEXMF/ls-R
+ rm -f $LOCALTEXMF/ls-R || true
   rmdir $LOCALTEXMF 2>/dev/null || true
 fi

--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer

Revision history for this message
In , Frank Küster (frank-debian) wrote : Bug#338638: fixed in tetex-base 2.0.2c-8sarge1

Source: tetex-base
Source-Version: 2.0.2c-8sarge1

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
tetex-base, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

tetex-base_2.0.2c-8sarge1.diff.gz
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0.2c-8sarge1.diff.gz
tetex-base_2.0.2c-8sarge1.dsc
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0.2c-8sarge1.dsc
tetex-base_2.0.2c-8sarge1_all.deb
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0.2c-8sarge1_all.deb
tetex-doc_2.0.2c-8sarge1_all.deb
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-doc_2.0.2c-8sarge1_all.deb
tetex-extra_2.0.2c-8sarge1_all.deb
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-extra_2.0.2c-8sarge1_all.deb

A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you
have further comments please address them to <email address hidden>,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Frank Küster <email address hidden> (supplier of updated tetex-base package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing <email address hidden>)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:44:42 +0100
Source: tetex-base
Binary: tetex-extra tetex-doc tetex-base
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.0.2c-8sarge1
Distribution: stable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: teTeX maintainers <email address hidden>
Changed-By: Frank Küster <email address hidden>
Description:
 tetex-base - Basic library files of teTeX
 tetex-doc - The documentation component of the Debian teTeX packages
 tetex-extra - Additional library files of teTeX
Closes: 338638
Changes:
 tetex-base (2.0.2c-8sarge1) stable; urgency=low
 .
   * Do not fail in the prerm script when the ls-R file is on a read-only
     filesystem (closes: #338638). This fix is critical and should go into
     sarge, because it is needed to be able to upgrade to tetex-base_3.0 on
     affected systems.
Files:
 41b009dc6064e7037587616e9c7261da 811 tex optional tetex-base_2.0.2c-8sarge1.dsc
 c5e23c736a2d76eb0af278ce8e49a45a 632130 tex optional tetex-base_2.0.2c-8sarge1.diff.gz
 c779f8d7c5efd064f38bfc5c68433ea3 14361658 tex optional tetex-base_2.0.2c-8sarge1_all.deb
 98e202220093938f5c5e7705532c0128 10468284 tex optional tetex-extra_2.0.2c-8sarge1_all.deb
 ba376fb5b60d8f73abccfefdf33e582e 28207288 doc optional tetex-doc_2.0.2c-8sarge1_all.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDlEOE+xs9YyJS+hoRAl5lAJ0WLqEX6LLwYZYS5mLTCaxEbDgwuwCfdj5z
J2UFHl+zBYYaotnAdoHtJdQ=
=TBX1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Revision history for this message
Debian Bug Importer (debzilla) wrote :
Download full text (3.2 KiB)

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:08:35 +0100
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Upload of tetex-base to stable

Hi,

I have just uploaded tetex-base_2.0.2c-8sarge1 to stable to address bug
#338638. This bug:

- is RC because it is a violation of the handling of /usr/local as
  described in Policy 9.1.2, and because it causes the prerm script of
  tetex-base to fail in a non-recoverable way

- cannot be solved by adding an appropriate "failed-upgrade" section to
  a newer version of tetex-base.=20=20

  The reason is that tetex-base_3.0-* in sid has file conflicts with
  tetex-bin in sarge (and therefore declares "Conflicts: tetex-bin (<=3D
  2.99-7)"), while tetex-bin_3.0 depends on functionality, specifically
  TeX input files, provided by tetex-base only since version 3.0-4.

  To solve this upgrade problem, apt(itude) will first remove tetex-base
  ("Dependency problems prevent..., but removing anyway as you
  requested"), then unpack the updated tetex-bin package and then unpack
  the new tetex-base. Because of this solution, from dpkg's point of
  view the buggy tetex-base version in sarge is not removed during an
  upgrade, but just on its own, and there is no "new prerm" to call with
  "failed upgrade".

A hypothetical alternative solution to an upload to stable would be to
take measures to make apt(itude) choose a different solution (namely
removing tetex-bin with --force-depends, unpacking tetex-base on top of
the old version, reinstalling tetex-bin). But AFAIK there is no way to
relyably do this, because apt(itude)'s choice depends on the installed
(and selected?) packages that depend on both packages, and may change
depending on the particular installation.

I hope that you consider this upgrade for a stable point release. Below
is the interdiff between the diff.gz files; we have also an added
vietnamese debconf translation for the version in sarge which could be
added, too.

Thank you in advance,
Frank

$ interdiff tetex-base_2.0.2c-8.diff tetex-base_2.0.2c-8sarge1.diff=20
diff -u tetex-base-2.0.2c/debian/changelog tetex-base-2.0.2c/debian/changel=
og
--- tetex-base-2.0.2c/debian/changelog
+++ tetex-base-2.0.2c/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
+tetex-base (2.0.2c-8sarge1) stable; urgency=3Dlow
+
+ * Do not fail in the prerm script when the ls-R file is on a read-only
+ filesystem (closes: #338638). This fix is critical and should go into
+ sarge, because it is needed to be able to upgrade to tetex-base_3.0 on
+ affected systems.
+
+ -- Frank K=C3=BCster <email address hidden> Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:44:42 +0100
+
 tetex-base (2.0.2c-8) unstable; urgency=3Dlow
=20
   * Add documentation for the Sueterlin fonts (ancient german handwriting)
diff -u tetex-base-2.0.2c/debian/prerm tetex-base-2.0.2c/debian/prerm
--- tetex-base-2.0.2c/debian/prerm
+++ tetex-base-2.0.2c/debian/prerm
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
=20
   # remove ls-R file, so that the directory can be removed.
   LOCALTEXMF=3D/usr/local/share/texmf
- rm -f $LOCALTEXMF/ls-R
+ rm -f $LOCALTEXMF/ls-R || true
   rmdir $LOCALTEXMF 2>/dev/nul...

Read more...

Revision history for this message
Debian Bug Importer (debzilla) wrote :

Message-Id: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 06:02:23 -0800
From: =?utf-8?q?Frank_K=C3=BCster?= <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: Bug#338638: fixed in tetex-base 2.0.2c-8sarge1

Source: tetex-base
Source-Version: 2.0.2c-8sarge1

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
tetex-base, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

tetex-base_2.0.2c-8sarge1.diff.gz
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0.2c-8sarge1.diff.gz
tetex-base_2.0.2c-8sarge1.dsc
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0.2c-8sarge1.dsc
tetex-base_2.0.2c-8sarge1_all.deb
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0.2c-8sarge1_all.deb
tetex-doc_2.0.2c-8sarge1_all.deb
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-doc_2.0.2c-8sarge1_all.deb
tetex-extra_2.0.2c-8sarge1_all.deb
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-extra_2.0.2c-8sarge1_all.deb

A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you
have further comments please address them to <email address hidden>,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Frank Küster <email address hidden> (supplier of updated tetex-base package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing <email address hidden>)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:44:42 +0100
Source: tetex-base
Binary: tetex-extra tetex-doc tetex-base
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.0.2c-8sarge1
Distribution: stable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: teTeX maintainers <email address hidden>
Changed-By: Frank Küster <email address hidden>
Description:
 tetex-base - Basic library files of teTeX
 tetex-doc - The documentation component of the Debian teTeX packages
 tetex-extra - Additional library files of teTeX
Closes: 338638
Changes:
 tetex-base (2.0.2c-8sarge1) stable; urgency=low
 .
   * Do not fail in the prerm script when the ls-R file is on a read-only
     filesystem (closes: #338638). This fix is critical and should go into
     sarge, because it is needed to be able to upgrade to tetex-base_3.0 on
     affected systems.
Files:
 41b009dc6064e7037587616e9c7261da 811 tex optional tetex-base_2.0.2c-8sarge1.dsc
 c5e23c736a2d76eb0af278ce8e49a45a 632130 tex optional tetex-base_2.0.2c-8sarge1.diff.gz
 c779f8d7c5efd064f38bfc5c68433ea3 14361658 tex optional tetex-base_2.0.2c-8sarge1_all.deb
 98e202220093938f5c5e7705532c0128 10468284 tex optional tetex-extra_2.0.2c-8sarge1_all.deb
 ba376fb5b60d8f73abccfefdf33e582e 28207288 doc optional tetex-doc_2.0.2c-8sarge1_all.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDlEOE+xs9YyJS+hoRAl5lAJ0WLqEX6LLwYZYS5mLTCaxEbDgwuwCfdj5z
J2UFHl+zBYYaotnAdoHtJdQ=
=TBX1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Revision history for this message
In , Frank Küster (frank-kuesterei) wrote : I guess this will not work, however

reopen 338638
notfound 338638 3.0-11
found 338638 2.0.2c-9
thanks
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer

Revision history for this message
In , Frank Küster (frank-debian) wrote : Re: teTeX testing migration: is hinting needed, or is it a versioned BTS issue?

Steve Langasek <email address hidden> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 09:20:13AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>
>> The update-excuses at http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=tetex-base
>> say that the binary packages tetex-doc and tetex-base are both "buggy
>> (1>0)", however, the tetex-doc bug is present in all versions (nonfree
>> documentation), and the tetex-base bug is present *only* in testing (and
>> in sarge).
>
>> Am I doing something wrong?
>
> Bug #338638 in tetex-base is *not* marked as being specific to
> stable/testing. You have to mark the bug as *closed* in the current version
> of the package, not "notfound". Please review the BTS version tracking
> documentation posted to d-d-a last July. And please close the bug. :)

Done.
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Revision history for this message
In , Frank Küster (frank-kuesterei) wrote : Properly keep this bug open for stable

reopen 338638
found 338638 2.0.2c-8
thanks

--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Revision history for this message
In , Frank Küster (frank-kuesterei) wrote : Properly close this bug for unstable

Version: 3.0-1
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Revision history for this message
Matt Zimmerman (mdz) wrote :

Fixed in 3.0-1 and later:

tetex-base | 3.0-15build1 | http://us.archive.ubuntu.com dapper/main Packages

Changed in tetex-base:
status: Unconfirmed → Fix Released
Revision history for this message
In , Steinar H. Gunderson (sesse) wrote : closing 338638

# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.20
close 338638 3.0-11

Revision history for this message
In , Hilmar Preusse (hille42) wrote : Re: Processed: closing 338638

reopen 338638
found 338638 2.0.2c-8
stop

On 16.07.06 Debian Bug Tracking System (<email address hidden>) wrote:
> Processing commands for <email address hidden>:

> > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.20
> > close 338638 3.0-11
>
> Bug#338638: tetex-base: dies when /usr/local/ read-only
> 'close' is deprecated; see http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#closing.
> Bug marked as fixed in version 3.0-11, send any further explanations to Andrew Stribblehill <email address hidden>
>
So, why do you close it another time for 3.0-11? The bug was in
reality fixed in 3.0-1, but still in sarge (2.0.2c-8).
Actually the status is:

Package: tetex-base (tetex-base 2.0.2c-8, tetex-base 2.0.2c-9; fixed:
3.0-1, 3.0-11); Severity: serious

I reopen and mark it as found in 2.0.2c-8.

H.
--
You know you've been spending too much time on the computer when your
friend misdates a check, and you suggest adding a "++" to fix it.
  http://www.hilmar-preusse.de.vu/

Bug Watch Updater (bug-watch-updater)
Changed in tetex-base:
status: Fix Released → Confirmed
Revision history for this message
In , Bill Allombert (allomber) wrote : only affect sarge

tags 338638 sarge
quit

Cheers
--
Bill. <email address hidden>

Imagine a large red swirl here.

Revision history for this message
In , Frank Küster (frank-debian) wrote : Re: Bug#338638: only affect sarge

tags 338638 -sarge
stop

Bill Allombert <email address hidden> wrote:

> tags 338638 sarge
> quit

Why do you believe so? As far as I remember the problem, it will be
triggered when the sarge package is removed (instead of upgraded).
Since this will be the case when upgrading to etch (I think the
explanation is in the bug report), it's a problem for etch.

I haven't had time to think about this and do any coding. But I believe
it can only be solved by a upload *to*sarge*, because during etch
upgrade there won't be a fallback maintainer script from a new version.
The upload I did on this was rejected by the stable release manager. I
always wanted to raise this issue again, now that there are new persons
on this position. However, I think there was also a technical problem
with the previous upload, therefore I didn't have time to actually do it.

Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)

Revision history for this message
In , Frank Küster (frank-kuesterei) wrote :

# correcting myself
found 338638 3.0-20
thanks

Frank Küster <email address hidden> wrote:

> I haven't had time to think about this and do any coding. But I believe
> it can only be solved by a upload *to*sarge*, because during etch
> upgrade there won't be a fallback maintainer script from a new version.

Okay, I played around with that a bit. Actually I see no reason why
tetex-base needs to declare a conflict with older tetex-bin. It doesn't
even need a Replaces. If we remove the Conflicts:, it is still
guaranteed that it is impossible to install and configure a newer
tetex-base with an old tetex-bin, and this is because of both tetex
packages' dependency on tex-common. And because tex-common in turn
conflicts with sarge's tetex packages, and I think it has a reason for
that.

The nice consequence is that we can be sure that the upgrade from sarge
will proceed without removing tetex-base at an intermediate state, and
therefore we can use a failed-upgrade stanza in the new package's
preinst script.

> The upload I did on this was rejected by the stable release manager. I
> always wanted to raise this issue again, now that there are new persons
> on this position. However, I think there was also a technical problem
> with the previous upload, therefore I didn't have time to actually do it.

Well, the technical problem was that I only fixed the preinst script,
but did not add a failed-update stanza, so it wouldn't have worked,
anyway.

Regards, Frank

--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)

Revision history for this message
In , Frank Küster (frank-debian) wrote :

Version: 3.0-1
# again correcting myself. I assumed that we'd have to add a
# "failed-upgrade" stanza to the current package's prerm, but that's not
# the case - so no change needed here. However, there's still the
# separate issue of a superfluous versioned Conflicts discovered here
clone 338638 -1
retitle -1 Superfluous versioned Conflicts on older tetex-bin; breaks some upgrades
found -1 3.0-20
# curious how this mixture of Pseudo-header and comments will be handled
# by the control server...
stop

Frank Küster <email address hidden> wrote:

> Okay, I played around with that a bit. Actually I see no reason why
> tetex-base needs to declare a conflict with older tetex-bin. [...]
>
> The nice consequence is that we can be sure that the upgrade from sarge
> will proceed without removing tetex-base at an intermediate state, and
> therefore we can use a failed-upgrade stanza in the new package's
> preinst script.

The buggy code was only executed when the prerm was called with
"remove", not with "upgrade". Therefore it will not be called upon
upgrade from sarge to etch. There's no "failed-remove" argument,
naturally, so there's nothing we can do (except uploading to stable).

Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)

Revision history for this message
In , Frank Küster (frank-kuesterei) wrote : tag corrections

tags 387150 -help
tags 387150 pending
tags 338638 sarge
stop
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)

Bug Watch Updater (bug-watch-updater)
Changed in tetex-base:
status: Confirmed → Fix Released
Revision history for this message
In , Steve Langasek (vorlon) wrote : notfound 338638 in 3.0-20

# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.21
# this appears to be what Frank intended
notfound 338638 3.0-20

Revision history for this message
In , Steve Langasek (vorlon) wrote : tagging 338638

# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.21
tags 338638 - sarge

Revision history for this message
In , Steve Langasek (vorlon) wrote : closing 338638

# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.21
close 338638 3.0-9

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.
Subscribing...

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.