I hope I am not impatient, but I believe this bug is not ready for verification yet.
Testing the upgrade from Gutsy to Hardy with axyl-lucene installed and hardy-proposed enabled still fails:
dpkg - trying script from the new package instead ...
/usr/share/axyl/install/axyl-common-funcs.sh: 185: Syntax error: "(" unexpected
dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/axyl-lucene_2.1.10ubuntu1_all.deb (--unpack):
subprocess new post-removal script returned error exit status 2
apt-cache policy only shows a proposed version for axyl-lucene, not for axyl.
Manually removing the function keywords from /usr/share/axyl/install/axyl-common-funcs.sh, like Michaels debdiff for axyl would do, fixes this problem and makes the upgrade complete successfully. So I think a new version of axyl per Michaels debdiff is needed to verify and fix this bug.
I hope I am not impatient, but I believe this bug is not ready for verification yet.
Testing the upgrade from Gutsy to Hardy with axyl-lucene installed and hardy-proposed enabled still fails:
dpkg - trying script from the new package instead ... axyl/install/ axyl-common- funcs.sh: 185: Syntax error: "(" unexpected apt/archives/ axyl-lucene_ 2.1.10ubuntu1_ all.deb (--unpack):
/usr/share/
dpkg: error processing /var/cache/
subprocess new post-removal script returned error exit status 2
apt-cache policy only shows a proposed version for axyl-lucene, not for axyl. axyl/install/ axyl-common- funcs.sh, like Michaels debdiff for axyl would do, fixes this problem and makes the upgrade complete successfully. So I think a new version of axyl per Michaels debdiff is needed to verify and fix this bug.
Manually removing the function keywords from /usr/share/