Bug #8327 “libxft-dev: does not upgrade cleanly due to dpkg-dive...” : Bugs : xft package : Ubuntu

Revision history for this message

Debian Bug Importer (debzilla) wrote on 2004-09-21:

#1

Automatically imported from Debian bug report #272744 http://bugs.debian.org/272744

Revision history for this message

Debian Bug Importer (debzilla) wrote on 2004-09-21:

#2

Message-Id: <email address hidden>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:10:46 +0530
From: "Mahesh T. Pai" <email address hidden>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <email address hidden>
Subject: libxft-dev: error on upgrade from 2.1.2-4 to 2.1.2-6

Package: libxft-dev
Version: 2.1.2-4
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable

apt-get -f install
134511 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace libxft-dev 2.1.2-4 (using .../libxft-dev_2.1.2-6_i386.deb) ...
diversion of /usr/X11R6/include/X11/Xft/Xft.h to /usr/X11R6/include/X11/Xft/Xft1.h by libxft-dev
Removing `diversion of /usr/X11R6/include/X11/Xft/Xft.h to /usr/X11R6/include/X11/Xft/Xft1.h by libxft-dev'
dpkg-divert: rename involves overwriting `/usr/X11R6/include/X11/Xft/Xft.h' with
different file `/usr/X11R6/include/X11/Xft/Xft1.h', not allowed
dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/libxft-dev_2.1.2-6_i386.deb (--unpack):
subprocess pre-installation script returned error exit status 2
Errors were encountered while processing:
/var/cache/apt/archives/libxft-dev_2.1.2-6_i386.deb

E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.26
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8

Versions of packages libxft-dev depends on:
ii libc6-dev [libc-dev] 2.3.2.ds1-16 GNU C Library: Development Librari
ii libfontconfig1-dev 2.2.3-1 generic font configuration library
ii libfreetype6-dev 2.1.7-2.2 FreeType 2 font engine, developmen
ii libxft2 2.1.2-6 FreeType-based font drawing librar
ii libxrender-dev 0.8.3-4 X Rendering Extension client libra
ii pkg-config 0.15.0-3 Manage compile and link flags for
ii xlibs-dev 4.3.0.dfsg.1-1 X Window System client library dev
ii zlib1g-dev [libz-dev] 1:1.2.1-3 compression library - development

-- no debconf information

Message-Id: <E1C9pZG-0002tG-GQ@nandini.home>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:10:46 +0530
From: "Mahesh T. Pai" <paivakil@vsnl.net>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: libxft-dev: error on upgrade from 2.1.2-4 to 2.1.2-6

Package: libxft-dev
Version: 2.1.2-4
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable

apt-get -f install
134511 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace libxft-dev 2.1.2-4 (using .../libxft-dev_2.1.2-6_i386.deb) ...
diversion of /usr/X11R6/include/X11/Xft/Xft.h to /usr/X11R6/include/X11/Xft/Xft1.h by libxft-dev
Removing `diversion of /usr/X11R6/include/X11/Xft/Xft.h to /usr/X11R6/include/X11/Xft/Xft1.h by libxft-dev'
dpkg-divert: rename involves overwriting `/usr/X11R6/include/X11/Xft/Xft.h' with
  different file `/usr/X11R6/include/X11/Xft/Xft1.h', not allowed
dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/libxft-dev_2.1.2-6_i386.deb (--unpack):
 subprocess pre-installation script returned error exit status 2
Errors were encountered while processing:
 /var/cache/apt/archives/libxft-dev_2.1.2-6_i386.deb

E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.26
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8

Versions of packages libxft-dev depends on:
ii  libc6-dev [libc-dev]      2.3.2.ds1-16   GNU C Library: Development Librari
ii  libfontconfig1-dev        2.2.3-1        generic font configuration library
ii  libfreetype6-dev          2.1.7-2.2      FreeType 2 font engine, developmen
ii  libxft2                   2.1.2-6        FreeType-based font drawing librar
ii  libxrender-dev            0.8.3-4        X Rendering Extension client libra
ii  pkg-config                0.15.0-3       Manage compile and link flags for 
ii  xlibs-dev                 4.3.0.dfsg.1-1 X Window System client library dev
ii  zlib1g-dev [libz-dev]     1:1.2.1-3      compression library - development

-- no debconf information

Revision history for this message

In Debian Bug tracker #272744, Frank Lichtenheld (djpig) wrote on 2004-09-22: severity of 272744 is important, merging 272744 237509

#3

# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.8.4
severity 272744 important
# and another one of these
merge 272744 237509

Revision history for this message

Debian Bug Importer (debzilla) wrote on 2004-09-22:

#4

Message-Id: <email address hidden>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 02:02:35 +0200
From: Frank Lichtenheld <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: severity of 272744 is important, merging 272744 237509

# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.8.4
severity 272744 important
# and another one of these
merge 272744 237509

Revision history for this message

Fabio Massimo Di Nitto (fabbione) wrote on 2004-09-22:

#5

This bug simply cannot be fixed. See all the debian bugs as reference.

Revision history for this message

In Debian Bug tracker #272744, Branden Robinson (branden) wrote on 2004-10-12: Re: Bug#271760: libxft-dev: upgrade from 2.1.2-4 to 2.1.2-6 fails

#6

Download full text (4.4 KiB)

tag 271760 + wontfix
merge 237509 271760
thanks

Filing duplicates of this bug against libxft-dev won't add features to dpkg
any faster (also see #237509 and #272744).

[The following is a form letter.]

Hello,

You recently filed a duplicate bug report against a Debian package; that
is, the problem had already been reported.

While there is often nothing inherently wrong with doing so, the filing of
duplicate reports can cause Debian package maintainers to spend time
performing triage and maintenance operations on bug reports (e.g.,
instructing the Debian Bug Tracking System to merge the duplicates) that
could otherwise be spent resolving problems and doing other work on the
package.

One very good way to file bugs with the Debian Bug Tracking System is to
use the "reportbug" package and command of the same name. A very nice
feature of reportbug is that, if the machine where you run it has network
access to the World Wide Web, it can query the Debian Bug Tracking System
and show you existing reports. This reduces the chance that you'll file a
duplicate report, and offers you the option of adding follow-up information
to an existing bug report. This is especially valuable if you have unique
information to add to an existing report, because this way information
relevant to the problem is gathered together in one place as opposed to
being scattered among multiple, duplicate bug reports where some facts may
be overlooked by the package maintainers. The reportbug program also does
a lot of automatic information-gathering that helps package maintainers to
understand your system configuration, and also ensures that your message to
the Debian Bug Tracking System is well-formed so that it is processed
correctly by the automated tools that manage the reports. (If you've ever
gotten a "bounce" message from the Debian Bug Tracking System that tells
you your message couldn't be processed, you might appreciate this latter
feature.)

Therefore, I strongly urge you to give "reportbug" a try as your primary
bug reporting tool for the Debian System. (If you already do use
"reportbug", please see below.)

One way to install reportbug is with "apt-get"; for
example:

# apt-get install reportbug

The "reportbug" command has a few different modes that cater to different
levels of user expertise. If this message has contained a lot of jargon
that is unfamiliar to you, you likely want to use reportbug's "novice"
mode; here's one way to do that.

  $ reportbug --mode=novice
  Please enter the name of the package in which you have found a problem,
  or type 'other' to report a more general problem.
  >

If you're more sophisticated, or if you are not using the released version
of Debian ("stable"), but instead Debian "testing" or "unstable", you
should use reportbug's standard mode.

  $ reportbug
  Please enter the name of the package in which you have found a problem,
  or type 'other' to report a more general problem.
  >

The reportbug command is extensively documented in its usage message and
manual page. Commands to view these pieces of documentation are:

$ reportbug --help | more
$ man reportbug

(The output of the above commands has been omitte...

tag 271760 + wontfix
merge 237509 271760
thanks

Filing duplicates of this bug against libxft-dev won't add features to dpkg
any faster (also see #237509 and #272744).

[The following is a form letter.]

Hello,

You recently filed a duplicate bug report against a Debian package; that
is, the problem had already been reported.

While there is often nothing inherently wrong with doing so, the filing of
duplicate reports can cause Debian package maintainers to spend time
performing triage and maintenance operations on bug reports (e.g.,
instructing the Debian Bug Tracking System to merge the duplicates) that
could otherwise be spent resolving problems and doing other work on the
package.

One very good way to file bugs with the Debian Bug Tracking System is to
use the "reportbug" package and command of the same name.  A very nice
feature of reportbug is that, if the machine where you run it has network
access to the World Wide Web, it can query the Debian Bug Tracking System
and show you existing reports.  This reduces the chance that you'll file a
duplicate report, and offers you the option of adding follow-up information
to an existing bug report.  This is especially valuable if you have unique
information to add to an existing report, because this way information
relevant to the problem is gathered together in one place as opposed to
being scattered among multiple, duplicate bug reports where some facts may
be overlooked by the package maintainers.  The reportbug program also does
a lot of automatic information-gathering that helps package maintainers to
understand your system configuration, and also ensures that your message to
the Debian Bug Tracking System is well-formed so that it is processed
correctly by the automated tools that manage the reports.  (If you've ever
gotten a "bounce" message from the Debian Bug Tracking System that tells
you your message couldn't be processed, you might appreciate this latter
feature.)

Therefore, I strongly urge you to give "reportbug" a try as your primary
bug reporting tool for the Debian System.  (If you already do use
"reportbug", please see below.)

One way to install reportbug is with "apt-get"; for
example:

# apt-get install reportbug

The "reportbug" command has a few different modes that cater to different
levels of user expertise.  If this message has contained a lot of jargon
that is unfamiliar to you, you likely want to use reportbug's "novice"
mode; here's one way to do that.

$ reportbug --mode=novice
  Please enter the name of the package in which you have found a problem,
  or type 'other' to report a more general problem.
  >

If you're more sophisticated, or if you are not using the released version
of Debian ("stable"), but instead Debian "testing" or "unstable", you
should use reportbug's standard mode.

$ reportbug
  Please enter the name of the package in which you have found a problem,
  or type 'other' to report a more general problem.
  >

The reportbug command is extensively documented in its usage message and
manual page.  Commands to view these pieces of documentation are:

$ reportbug --help | more
  $ man reportbug

(The output of the above commands has been omitted from this message.)

If you do use reportbug, but are so daunted by the large number of bugs
already filed against a package that you feel you cannot search for a
duplicate, please note that reportbug has a (f)ilter feature that enables
you to use a keyword search to limit the number of bugs reported.  (If
you're feeling ambitious, the filter feature also accepts a regular
expression.)  For example, if you'd like to report a SEGV (segfault), you
might filter based on the term "SEGV".  If you're having trouble upgrading
a package, you might filter based on "upgrad" (to catch both "upgrade" and
"upgrading").  Some package maintainers retitle bugs to contain keywords so
as to facilitate better filtering and convey more useful information, since
a bug report with a title of "broken" or the like is not very useful to
anyone.

We appreciate you taking the time to help package maintainers serve you
better by reducing the amount of time they need to spend coping with
duplicate bug reports.

Thanks for using the Debian system!

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |    As people do better, they start
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    voting like Republicans -- unless
branden@debian.org                 |    they have too much education and
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |    vote Democratic.       -- Karl Rove

Revision history for this message

Debian Bug Importer (debzilla) wrote on 2004-10-13:

#7

Download full text (5.2 KiB)

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:32:46 -0500
From: Branden Robinson <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#271760: libxft-dev: upgrade from 2.1.2-4 to 2.1.2-6 fails

--NDBIuOhhuXN82eSv
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

tag 271760 + wontfix
merge 237509 271760
thanks

Filing duplicates of this bug against libxft-dev won't add features to dpkg
any faster (also see #237509 and #272744).

[The following is a form letter.]

Hello,

You recently filed a duplicate bug report against a Debian package; that
is, the problem had already been reported.

While there is often nothing inherently wrong with doing so, the filing of
duplicate reports can cause Debian package maintainers to spend time
performing triage and maintenance operations on bug reports (e.g.,
instructing the Debian Bug Tracking System to merge the duplicates) that
could otherwise be spent resolving problems and doing other work on the
package.

One very good way to file bugs with the Debian Bug Tracking System is to
use the "reportbug" package and command of the same name. A very nice
feature of reportbug is that, if the machine where you run it has network
access to the World Wide Web, it can query the Debian Bug Tracking System
and show you existing reports. This reduces the chance that you'll file a
duplicate report, and offers you the option of adding follow-up information
to an existing bug report. This is especially valuable if you have unique
information to add to an existing report, because this way information
relevant to the problem is gathered together in one place as opposed to
being scattered among multiple, duplicate bug reports where some facts may
be overlooked by the package maintainers. The reportbug program also does
a lot of automatic information-gathering that helps package maintainers to
understand your system configuration, and also ensures that your message to
the Debian Bug Tracking System is well-formed so that it is processed
correctly by the automated tools that manage the reports. (If you've ever
gotten a "bounce" message from the Debian Bug Tracking System that tells
you your message couldn't be processed, you might appreciate this latter
feature.)

Therefore, I strongly urge you to give "reportbug" a try as your primary
bug reporting tool for the Debian System. (If you already do use
"reportbug", please see below.)

One way to install reportbug is with "apt-get"; for
example:

# apt-get install reportbug

The "reportbug" command has a few different modes that cater to different
levels of user expertise. If this message has contained a lot of jargon
that is unfamiliar to you, you likely want to use reportbug's "novice"
mode; here's one way to do that.

  $ reportbug --mode=3Dnovice
  Please enter the name of the package in which you have found a problem,
  or type 'other' to report a more general problem.
  >

If you're more sophisticated, or if you are not using the released version
of Debian ("stable"), but instead Debian "testing" or "unstable", you
shou...

Message-ID: <20041012223246.GB19131@redwald.deadbeast.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:32:46 -0500
From: Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>
To: 271760-submitter@bugs.debian.org, control@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#271760: libxft-dev: upgrade from 2.1.2-4 to 2.1.2-6 fails

--NDBIuOhhuXN82eSv
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

tag 271760 + wontfix
merge 237509 271760
thanks

Filing duplicates of this bug against libxft-dev won't add features to dpkg
any faster (also see #237509 and #272744).

[The following is a form letter.]

Hello,

You recently filed a duplicate bug report against a Debian package; that
is, the problem had already been reported.

While there is often nothing inherently wrong with doing so, the filing of
duplicate reports can cause Debian package maintainers to spend time
performing triage and maintenance operations on bug reports (e.g.,
instructing the Debian Bug Tracking System to merge the duplicates) that
could otherwise be spent resolving problems and doing other work on the
package.

One very good way to file bugs with the Debian Bug Tracking System is to
use the "reportbug" package and command of the same name.  A very nice
feature of reportbug is that, if the machine where you run it has network
access to the World Wide Web, it can query the Debian Bug Tracking System
and show you existing reports.  This reduces the chance that you'll file a
duplicate report, and offers you the option of adding follow-up information
to an existing bug report.  This is especially valuable if you have unique
information to add to an existing report, because this way information
relevant to the problem is gathered together in one place as opposed to
being scattered among multiple, duplicate bug reports where some facts may
be overlooked by the package maintainers.  The reportbug program also does
a lot of automatic information-gathering that helps package maintainers to
understand your system configuration, and also ensures that your message to
the Debian Bug Tracking System is well-formed so that it is processed
correctly by the automated tools that manage the reports.  (If you've ever
gotten a "bounce" message from the Debian Bug Tracking System that tells
you your message couldn't be processed, you might appreciate this latter
feature.)

Therefore, I strongly urge you to give "reportbug" a try as your primary
bug reporting tool for the Debian System.  (If you already do use
"reportbug", please see below.)

One way to install reportbug is with "apt-get"; for
example:

# apt-get install reportbug

The "reportbug" command has a few different modes that cater to different
levels of user expertise.  If this message has contained a lot of jargon
that is unfamiliar to you, you likely want to use reportbug's "novice"
mode; here's one way to do that.

$ reportbug --mode=3Dnovice
  Please enter the name of the package in which you have found a problem,
  or type 'other' to report a more general problem.
  >

If you're more sophisticated, or if you are not using the released version
of Debian ("stable"), but instead Debian "testing" or "unstable", you
should use reportbug's standard mode.

$ reportbug
  Please enter the name of the package in which you have found a problem,
  or type 'other' to report a more general problem.
  >

The reportbug command is extensively documented in its usage message and
manual page.  Commands to view these pieces of documentation are:

$ reportbug --help | more
  $ man reportbug

(The output of the above commands has been omitted from this message.)

If you do use reportbug, but are so daunted by the large number of bugs
already filed against a package that you feel you cannot search for a
duplicate, please note that reportbug has a (f)ilter feature that enables
you to use a keyword search to limit the number of bugs reported.  (If
you're feeling ambitious, the filter feature also accepts a regular
expression.)  For example, if you'd like to report a SEGV (segfault), you
might filter based on the term "SEGV".  If you're having trouble upgrading
a package, you might filter based on "upgrad" (to catch both "upgrade" and
"upgrading").  Some package maintainers retitle bugs to contain keywords so
as to facilitate better filtering and convey more useful information, since
a bug report with a title of "broken" or the like is not very useful to
anyone.

We appreciate you taking the time to help package maintainers serve you
better by reducing the amount of time they need to spend coping with
duplicate bug reports.

Thanks for using the Debian system!

--=20
G. Branden Robinson                |    As people do better, they start
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    voting like Republicans -- unless
branden@debian.org                 |    they have too much education and
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |    vote Democratic.       -- Karl Rove

--NDBIuOhhuXN82eSv
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkFsW44ACgkQ6kxmHytGonwUcgCfdLKPd8DHqtGJwbwVwfq4xdZX
y5YAoKbZ22lmECf2B7EN8g5kECde1YSZ
=7owU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--NDBIuOhhuXN82eSv--

Revision history for this message

In Debian Bug tracker #272744, Branden Robinson (branden) wrote on 2005-04-02: closing unfixable bug

#8

This bug is unfixable without an addition to dpkg's feature set, which
wouldn't do any good for xft versions 2.1.2-[12345] anyway, all of which
have long since expired from Debian testing and unstable.

For details on why I can't fix this bug, please see:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=237509&msg=44

Closing this bug (and the many duplicate reports merged with it).

--
G. Branden Robinson |
Debian GNU/Linux | Yeah, that's what Jesus would do.
<email address hidden> | Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Revision history for this message

Debian Bug Importer (debzilla) wrote on 2005-04-04:

#9

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 10:42:08 -0500
From: Branden Robinson <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: closing unfixable bug

--eLe8FOcWSbbyMVJD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This bug is unfixable without an addition to dpkg's feature set, which
wouldn't do any good for xft versions 2.1.2-[12345] anyway, all of which
have long since expired from Debian testing and unstable.

For details on why I can't fix this bug, please see:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D237509&msg=3D44

Closing this bug (and the many duplicate reports merged with it).

--=20
G. Branden Robinson |
Debian GNU/Linux | Yeah, that's what Jesus would do.
<email address hidden> | Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

--eLe8FOcWSbbyMVJD
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkJOvU8ACgkQ6kxmHytGonwVIwCfcFJksR6P9msKp+aYu4l4D+he
BkYAoJR304l4frBxieSHqNRruobX1ycw
=IkK1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--eLe8FOcWSbbyMVJD--

Bug Watch Updater (bug-watch-updater) on 2006-09-27

Changed in xft:
status:	Unknown → Fix Released

Affects		Status	Importance	Assigned to	Milestone
	xft (Debian)	Fix Released	Unknown	debbugs #272744
	xft (Ubuntu)	Invalid	High	Fabio Massimo Di Nitto

Ubuntu
xft package

libxft-dev: does not upgrade cleanly due to dpkg-divert being run before unpack

Bug Description

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Ubuntuxft package

libxft-dev: does not upgrade cleanly due to dpkg-divert being run before unpack

Bug Description

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Ubuntu
xft package