On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 03:35:51AM +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > Package: perl > Version: 5.14.2-6
> The problem happens during the upgrade of libwmf0.2-7, the old prerm > calls defoma app which fails: Oh my, the squeeze defoma-app version was still broken in this regard. It would have been nice if we'd fixed it when this last broke with Etch -> Lenny (see #495359). > Preparing to replace libwmf0.2-7 0.2.8.4-6.1+b1 (using > .../libwmf0.2-7_0.2.8.4-10_amd64.deb) ... > Can't locate File/Copy.pm in @INC (@INC contains: /etc/perl > /usr/local/lib/perl/5.10.1 /usr/local/share/perl/5.10.1 /usr/lib/perl5 > /usr/share/perl5 /usr/lib/perl/5.10 /usr/share/perl/5.10 > /usr/local/lib/site_perl .) at /usr/bin/defoma-app line 7. > BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at /usr/bin/defoma-app line 7. > dpkg: warning: subprocess old pre-removal script returned error exit status > 2 > dpkg - trying script from the new package instead ... > dpkg: error processing > /var/cache/apt/archives/libwmf0.2-7_0.2.8.4-10_amd64.deb (--unpack): > there is no script in the new version of the package - giving up > File::Copy gets moved while perl-modules is updated, but the new > location is not used before perl-base is updated. Inbetween defoma-app > may not be used. > > While this could be worked around libwmf0.2-7 by adding a dummy postrm, I think that should be a dummy prerm? > <jcristau> anbe: if we can find a fix in perl or defoma instead i think > that'd be better > <jcristau> rather than finding all packages that might possibly call > defoma-app in the middle of the perl upgrade > > So I try assigning this to perl first, perhaps an appropriate > Breaks: defoma (<< $squeeze+1) > or other fix can be added to one of the perl packages. As it looks like defoma is finally fixed now (see #494106), I think we'd be fine if the wheezy perl-base had a Conflicts: defoma (<< 0.11.12). I don't think a Breaks: entry would be enough. OTOH, there are only a handful of packages depending on defoma left, so it might actually be feasible to check them all. For comparison, quoting myself in 2008 (#495359): > I have now gone through all the packages in Etch depending on defoma. > The only one that fails upgrades is gs-common. I found 14 packages whose > 'old-prerm upgrade' fails, but 'new-prerm failed-upgrade' succeeds. I doubt the problem is more widespread now. -- Niko Tyni [email protected] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
