tag 390698 moreinfo unreproducible thanks Hi!
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 18:31:20 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: > On 2006-10-02 18:22 +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > > Hi, look at this. Maybe it's just cosmetics, but it might also point to > > an underlying important problem: > > > > Preparing to replace tex-common 0.29~bpo.1 (using > > .../tex-common_0.30~bpo.1_all.deb) ... > > Unpacking replacement tex-common ... > > Preparing to replace tetex-base 3.0-21~bpo.1 (using > > .../tetex-base_3.0-23~bpo.1_all.deb) ... > > Unpacking replacement tetex-base ... > > Preparing to replace tetex-doc 3.0-21~bpo.1 (using > > .../tetex-doc_3.0-23~bpo.1_all.deb) ... > > Unpacking replacement tetex-doc ... > > Preparing to replace tetex-extra 3.0-21~bpo.1 (using > > .../tetex-extra_3.0-23~bpo.1_all.deb) ... > > Unpacking replacement tetex-extra ... > > Setting up libpoppler-glib-dev (0.4.5-3bpo1) ... > > Setting up tex-common (0.30~bpo.2) ... > > > > Setting up tetex-base (3.0-23~bpo.1) ... > > > > Note that in the first line, it says it is using version 0.30~bpo.1, > > whereas when in the configure phase, it says 0.30~bpo.2. > > One explanation is that the "Preparing to replace..." message displays > (part of) a file name in the brackets whereas the "Setting up..." > message displays a package version. The file name does not need to > match the package version. > > > And the second one must have been correct, because bpo.1 had an error in > > its postinst, which would not run. > > > > I uploaded both 30~bpo.* versions today, and it might have to do with > > apt-proxy running between me and the actual mirrors. But still I think > > this should never happen. > > Hm, is it possible that you mixed up the file names when copying the > packages and that your ~bpo.2 package inadvertently became a > ~bpo.1_all.deb? That would be an explanation, and really the only one I > can think of. Can these packages be found anywhere today? That's my guess as well. > In the unlikely case that you have the aptitude and/or dpkg logs still > available, they could shed more light on the issue, but otherwise it > might be best to just close the bug, since there's probably nothing that > can be done about it (apart from improving dpkg's messages, which has > already been suggested -- see #71106, for instance). Yeah, marked now accordingly. Frank do you still have those around, otherwise will be probably just closing in a while. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
