Your message dated Fri, 04 Feb 2005 12:40:30 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#286549: Clarification of #286549
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)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 20 Dec 2004 19:47:46 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Dec 20 11:47:46 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from smtp05.web.de [217.72.192.209]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1CgTVR-0003XU-00; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 11:47:46 -0800
Received: from [217.231.208.54] (helo=tunichtgut.zusammrottung.local)
by smtp05.web.de with asmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168)
(WEB.DE 4.103 #184)
id 1CgTUx-0006Ur-00
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 20:47:15 +0100
Received: from anna.zusammrottung.local ([192.168.1.4]
helo=localhost.localdomain)
by tunichtgut.zusammrottung.local with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 1CgTUv-0002Rk-00; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 20:47:13 +0100
Received: from nikolaus by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.34)
id 1CgTUs-0001WD-N1; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 20:47:10 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Nikolaus Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: debian-policy: Detailed description of maintainer script calls
(Section 6.5)
is incomplete
X-Mailer: reportbug 3.2
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 20:47:10 +0100
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.6.1.1
Severity: normal
Hi,
see "Details of unpack phase of installation or upgrade" (Policy section
6.5). If a package is upgraded and "<new-preinst> upgrade
<old-version>" fails, "<old-postinst> abort-upgrade <new-version>" is
called.
This is missing in the Policy Manual:
,----[ policy.txt ]
|
| 3. 1. If the package is being upgraded, call:
| <new-preinst> upgrade <old-version>
|
| 2. Otherwise, if the package had some configuration files from
| a previous version installed (i.e., it is in the
| "configuration files only" state):
| <new-preinst> install <old-version>
|
| 3. Otherwise (i.e., the package was completely purged):
| <new-preinst> install
| Error unwind actions, respectively:
| <new-postrm> abort-upgrade <old-version>
| <new-postrm> abort-install <old-version>
| <new-postrm> abort-install
|
| 4. [...]
`----
All the best,
Nikolaus
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: powerpc (ppc)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-powerpc-fbfix
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15)
-- no debconf information
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 286549-done) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Feb 2005 18:48:55 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Feb 04 10:48:55 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from host-12-107-230-171.dtccom.net
(glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com) [12.107.230.171]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1Cx8Vi-00023i-00; Fri, 04 Feb 2005 10:48:54 -0800
Received: from glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com (8.13.3/8.13.3/Debian-4) with
ESMTP id j14Ierm4030232
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);
Fri, 4 Feb 2005 12:41:07 -0600
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id
j14IeV4n030226;
Fri, 4 Feb 2005 12:40:31 -0600
X-Authentication-Warning: glaurung.internal.golden-gryphon.com: srivasta set
sender to srivasta(va, manoj)@debian.org using -f
From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (va, manoj)>
To: Nikolaus Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#286549: Clarification of #286549
Organization: The Debian Project
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux)
(i686-pc-linux-gnu)
X-URL: http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-Hashcash: 1:25:050204:[EMAIL
PROTECTED]::3e1vC0zWbHvsCLMV:0000000000000000000000000000000000000015wnV
X-Hashcash: 1:25:050204:[EMAIL
PROTECTED]::TMCpcOwysyy4xJj6:0000000000000000000000000000000000000001tSS2
X-Face: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/;Y^gTjR\T^"B'fbeuVGiyKrvbfKJl!^e|e:iu(kJ6c|QYB57LP*|t
&YlP~HF/=h:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:6Cj0kd#4]>*D,|0djf'CVlXkI,>aV4\}?d_KEqsN{Nnt7
78"OsbQ["56/!nisvyB/uA5Q.{)gm6?q.j71ww.>b9b]-sG8zNt%KkIa>xWg&1VcjZk[hBQ>]j~`Wq
Xl,y1a!(>6`UM{~'X[Y_,Bv+}=L\SS*mA8=s;!=O`ja|@PEzb&i0}Qp,`Z\:6:OmRi*
X-Hashcash: 1:25:050204:[EMAIL
PROTECTED]::/6tXijWwl+JQN+j6:0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000Qlta
X-Hashcash: 1:25:050204:[EMAIL
PROTECTED]::6Gvc7+NCDS5S4PEo:00000000000000000000000000000000006Oi4
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 12:40:30 -0600
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Thomas Hood's message of
"Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:59:36 +0100")
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-CRM114-Score: -82.18
X-CRM114-Status: Good ( pR: -82.18 )
X-Spam-Value: -17.57
X-SA-Rep: -17.57 ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00,HASHCASH_25,SUBJ_HAS_UNIQ_ID
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang version 2.48 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang)
on 127.0.0.1
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.3 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER,
SUBJ_HAS_UNIQ_ID autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Hi,
You said that:
> If a package is upgraded and
> "<new-preinst> upgrade <old-version>" fails,
> "<old-postinst> abort-upgrade <new-version>" is called.
Looking at src/cleanup.c in the dpkg sources, I don't see this
to be the case: the only time a postrm script is called with an
"abort-upgrade" argument is in the function cu_prermupgrade; which
corresponds to
,----[ 6.5. Details of unpack phase of installation or upgrade ]
| 1. 1. If a version of the package is already installed, call
| <old-prerm> upgrade <new-version>
|
| 2. If the script runs but exits with a non-zero exit status,
| `dpkg' will attempt:
| <new-prerm> failed-upgrade <old-version>
| Error unwind, for both the above cases:
| <old-postinst> abort-upgrade <new-version>
`----
Indeed, looking at the code, I see no basis for that
statement, so I am closing this report. Please reopen it if you can
demonstrate from dpkg source that policy is indeed incomplete.
manoj
--
Q: How many Martians does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A: One and
a half.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
