Your message dated Thu, 28 Dec 2006 14:08:04 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#404631: missing files under /usr/share/doc/libtiff-tools/
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: libtiff-tools
Version: 3.8.2-6
Severity: serious
copyright file is not shipped along, which violates the policy.
Might be some cdbs flaw which led to such package?
> dpkg -L libtiff-tools | grep doc
/usr/share/doc
/usr/share/doc/libtiff-tools
> ls -l /usr/share/doc/libtiff-tools/
total 0
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 4.0
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (600, 'unstable'), (300, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.19-rc6-mm1
Locale: LANG=ru_RU.KOI8-R, LC_CTYPE=ru_RU.KOI8-R (charmap=KOI8-R)
Versions of packages libtiff-tools depends on:
ii libc6 2.3.6.ds1-9 GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii libjpeg62 6b-13 The Independent JPEG Group's JPEG
ii libtiff4 3.8.2-6 Tag Image File Format (TIFF) libra
ii zlib1g 1:1.2.3-13 compression library - runtime
libtiff-tools recommends no packages.
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
reopen 404631
thanks
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 11:40:20AM -0500, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> I'm closing this bug once again as the problem is not with tiff's
> packaging but with dpkg or something related to it. I have confirmed
> that upgrading from 3.7.2-7 (the sarge version) to 3.8.2-6 leaves an
> empty /usr/share/doc/libtiff-tools behind and that dpkg -P
> libtiff-tools followed apt-get install libtiff-tools creates the link
> as expected. It appears that dpkg is not successfully replacing a
> directory with a symbolic link, but I need to confirm this.
I'm afraid that dpkg *never* replaces a directory with a symbolic link, and
this is documented in policy. You need to handle such changes in your
maintainer scripts.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
--- End Message ---
