Your message dated Sun, 22 Dec 2019 19:13:20 +0100 (CET)
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#947068: wrong return code
has caused the Debian Bug report #947068,
regarding wrong return code
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
947068: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=947068
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.17.27
During installation of a package, that has some problems, the return code
of dpkg is still 0:
dpkg -i libgdk-pixbuf2.0-common_2.31.1-2+deb8u8_all.deb
libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0_2.31.1-2+deb8u8_amd64.deb
Selecting previously unselected package libgdk-pixbuf2.0-common.
(Reading database ... 135769 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to unpack libgdk-pixbuf2.0-common_2.31.1-2+deb8u8_all.deb ...
Unpacking libgdk-pixbuf2.0-common (2.31.1-2+deb8u8) ...
Selecting previously unselected package libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0:amd64.
Preparing to unpack libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0_2.31.1-2+deb8u8_amd64.deb ...
Unpacking libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0:amd64 (2.31.1-2+deb8u8) ...
Setting up libgdk-pixbuf2.0-common (2.31.1-2+deb8u8) ...
Setting up libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0:amd64 (2.31.1-2+deb8u8) ...
g_module_open() failed for /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/gdk-pixbuf-2.0/2.10.0/loaders/libpixbufloader-tiff.so:
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/gdk-pixbuf-2.0/2.10.0/loaders/libpixbufloader-tiff.so: undefined symbol: g_uint_checked_mul
Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.19-18+deb8u10) ...
root@test-jessie-amd64-extern:~/gdk-pixbuf/fail# echo $?
0
Is this the intended behaviour?
I admit that this is a rather old version of dpkg, but I did not find any
hint in the changelog that something had changed.
Thorsten
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Guillem,
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019, Guillem Jover wrote:
I'd assume that's because the postinst does not «set -e» or explicitly
ignores the return code of whatever command is emitting that error.
oh, you are right, "set -e" was set but there also was a "|| true" at the
end of the command in postinst (and even without that, the command didn't
set a proper return code) :-(.
So, sorry for the noise.
Thorsten
--- End Message ---
