On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 06:33:21PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Package: tetex-base > > Version: 3.0.dfsg.3-3 > > Severity: serious > > > > Hi, > > > > It seems that you can't uninstall the package if things aren't set up > > properly. > > Hm, yes. What happens is: > > - tex-common is unpacked
Which contains the update-language that's being called, and the /etc/texmf/language.d/00tex.cnf file it's trying to use. > - tetex-base is unpacked > - the install run fails because of an unrelated package At this point, both tex-common and tetex-base are in unpacked but not configure state. It looks like: iU tetex-base 3.0.dfsg.3-3 Basic TeX input files of teTeX iU tex-common 0.28 Common infrastructure for using and building And dpkg created an /etc/texmf/language.d/00tex.cnf.dpkg-new, there is no /etc/texmf/language.d/00tex.cnf yet. > - the buildd tries to remove the packages it just installed. > > The postrm script of tetex-base assumes that it would be called with > abort-install in this case, not "remove". However, I now see in policy > that this is only used as error-unwind if the preinst fails. > > This problem might actually exist in more packages, since this paragraph > from Policy: > > ,---- > | The Depends field should also be used if the postinst, prerm or postrm > | scripts require the package to be present in order to run. Note, > | however, that the postrm cannot rely on any non-essential packages to > | be present during the purge phase. > `---- > > seems to imply that one *can* rely on Depended-on packages to be present > *and*configured* at "postrm remove". Presense is actually guaranteed > AFAICS, but configuredness not. Yes, it says present and not configured or something, which atleast is not what I expected. > On the other hand, I'm not sure how to fix this. There's a reason why > the update-* scripts fail (with an understandable error message) when > the basic file is missing - so this shouldn't be changed. Should we > really ignore all errors of update-* in "postrm remove"? I currently don't have an idea what the proper thing to do is here, or that this should be considered RC. Kurt
