clone 501866 -1
reassign -1 perl-modules
retitle -1 Circular dependency between perl and perl-modules
thanks
Le jeudi 16 octobre 2008 à 14:33 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> Random note: A first step to enhance the situation could be to remove the
> circular dep
> between perl and perl-modules
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 01:35:42PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > On 2008-10-15 17:20 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >
> > > Le mercredi 15 octobre 2008 à 10:37 -0400, Higgins, Paul a écrit :
> > >> I'm not sure where the problem lies. I saw that th
On 2008-10-16 13:35 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> On 2008-10-15 17:20 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> > Frankly, I’m tempted to reassign this to dpkg; Policy §7.2 is very clear
>> > on the relationship between prerm scripts and Depends.
>>
>> I thi
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> The fundamental problem here is that perl-modules/perl/perl-base are not
> unpacked together. Unless you predepend on perl-modules/perl you can't ensure
> that they are in sync. IMO any perl script that is called in a prerm
> script should only rely on
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2008-10-15 17:20 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> > Le mercredi 15 octobre 2008 à 10:37 -0400, Higgins, Paul a écrit :
> >> I'm not sure where the problem lies. I saw that the packages that
> >> couldn't find File/Copy.pm seemed to have their depend
retitle 501866 dependencies not always installed correctly in prerm/upgrade
phase
reassign 501866 dpkg
severity 501866 important
thanks
Le jeudi 16 octobre 2008 à 10:11 +0200, Sven Joachim a écrit :
> On 2008-10-15 17:20 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Frankly, I’m tempted to reassign this to
On 2008-10-15 17:20 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 15 octobre 2008 à 10:37 -0400, Higgins, Paul a écrit :
>> I'm not sure where the problem lies. I saw that the packages that
>> couldn't find File/Copy.pm seemed to have their dependencies correct,
>> but apt and dpkg still allowed p
postinst already.
> -Original Message-
> From: Josselin Mouette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 04:36
> To: Higgins, Paul; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Bug#501866: Missing dependancy - libpango1.0-common.prerm uses
> defoma-app in pkg defoma
&g
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 04:36
To: Higgins, Paul; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#501866: Missing dependancy - libpango1.0-common.prerm uses
defoma-app in pkg defoma
Le vendredi 10 octobre 2008 à 22:24 -0400, Paul Higgins a écrit :
> The prerm or postrm scripts for
Le vendredi 10 octobre 2008 à 22:24 -0400, Paul Higgins a écrit :
> The prerm or postrm scripts for these packages use either
> /usr/bin/defoma-app or /usr/sbin/install-docs (in packages defoma and
> doc-base). Those in turn reference files in perl-modules already
> removed, causing libtiff4 to
Package: libpango1.0-common
Version: 1.20.5-2
Severity: normal
I dusted off a system that hasn't been upgraded since Oct of 2007.
Upgrading it required a big leap in package versions. The upgrade
of perl, perl-base, and perl-modules caused several problems.
(I'm filing this report for each pack
11 matches
Mail list logo
