Bug#603068: tex-common,texlive-binaries: can't be installed together
On 2010-11-11 00:51 +0100, Norbert Preining wrote:
Dear dpkg maintainers,
Dropping them since dpkg is not relevant here.
I have a question concerning dpkg-query, it seems that the semantics
of it has changed:
Currently, when I call
dpkg-query -W -f='${Status}' texlive-base
it returns 1 (error) if texlive-base is not installed (or going to
be installed).
This breaks installation of tex-common with texlive-binaries, but without
texlive-base.
You seem to have been aware of that some time ago, judging by the
comment in tex-common's postinst script:
,
| # dpkg-query has two defects wrt not existing packages
| # - it is noisy to stderr
| # - it returns 1
| # so shut both errors up
| stat=$(dpkg-query -W -f='${Status}' texlive-base 2/dev/null || true)
`
As far as I remember in former times this was working, so is this a
recent change, and was it intended, or is this a coding error from
our side.
Which you have corrected in tex-common 2.07:
,
| tex-common (2.07) unstable; urgency=high
|
| * work around an under-specification of dpkg-query that makes the calls
| to it in the configure script break configuration, and thus creates
| FTBFS of unrelated packages (Closes: #571334)
|
| -- Norbert Preining prein...@debian.org Sun, 28 Feb 2010 13:13:35 +0900
`
The question remains WTF Holger's piuparts test was run with the ancient
tex-common version 2.06.
Sven
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#603068: tex-common,texlive-binaries: can't be installed together
Hi,
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Norbert Preining wrote:
Currently, when I call
dpkg-query -W -f='${Status}' texlive-base
it returns 1 (error) if texlive-base is not installed (or going to
be installed).
This breaks installation of tex-common with texlive-binaries, but without
texlive-base.
As far as I remember in former times this was working, so is this a
recent change, and was it intended, or is this a coding error from
our side.
It's not a recent change AFAIK, but nowadays dpkg is removing
entries of purged packages from the status file so maybe it's more
likely to happen than before due to this.
We recently documented that behaviour in dpkg-query however.
EXIT STATUS
0 The requested query was successfully performed.
1 Problems were encountered while parsing the command line or
performing the query, including no file or package being found
(except for --control-path).
In principle what we are doing the in the tex-common trigger action
is to check whether texlive-base is installed, and if it is we run
some commands.
You should consider an error like an indication that the package
is not installed.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer ◈ [Flattr=20693]
Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English)
▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#603068: tex-common,texlive-binaries: can't be installed together
Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org wrote: Irrespective of whether tex-common has a bug, all those packages are probably buggy, since it seems they depend on texlive-binaries. This package does not provide any functionality to outsiders. Only with texlive-base can they expect anything usable. h: $ apt-cache rdepends texlive-binaries texlive-binaries Reverse Depends: xmltex |xdvik-ja texlive-lang-polish texlive-lang-indic texlive-lang-greek texlive-lang-czechslovak texlive-lang-cyrillic texlive-science [... many more ...] it seems we give a bad example ourselves. In fact we take the dependency information from upstream, but upstream has no problem declaring useless dependencies just to be sure, while we have the problem that others start thinking they'd get anything useful from texlive-binaries. They get a couple of scripts that can be run without problems, but mostly they get binaries (and scripts) that won't do anything but complain that their basic input or configuration files are missing... Should we file more bugs? Since the bugs don't cause any problem (the packages *will* have texlive-binaries installed, since it must be pulled in by texlive-base or whatever), I suggest that the TeX task force tries to update our TeX Policy. Then we start adhering to it, and ask other to do the same... Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster VCD Miltenberg, ADFC Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg Debian Developer (TeXLive) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#603068: tex-common,texlive-binaries: can't be installed together
Sorry dpkg guys for involving you into that.
I have seen the bug report, checked the code, missed the || true I had
already added, and only afterwards realized the the bug report
was done with an ancient version of tex-common - which I also missed.
On Do, 11 Nov 2010, Sven Joachim wrote:
You seem to have been aware of that some time ago, judging by the
comment in tex-common's postinst script:
,
| # dpkg-query has two defects wrt not existing packages
| # - it is noisy to stderr
| # - it returns 1
| # so shut both errors up
| stat=$(dpkg-query -W -f='${Status}' texlive-base 2/dev/null || true)
`
The question remains WTF Holger's piuparts test was run with the ancient
tex-common version 2.06.
Right, but this is not up to me to find out ;-)
Again, sorry for the noise, and thanks for the replies.
Best wishes
Norbert
Norbert Preiningprein...@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
(aikamuotojen käyttö aikamatkustuksessa)
You can arrive (mayan arivan on-when) for any sitting you
like without prior (late fore-when) reservation because you
can book retrospectively, as it were when you return to
your own time. (you can have on-book haventa forewhen
presooning returningwenta retrohome.)
--- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#603068: tex-common,texlive-binaries: can't be installed together
Package: tex-common,texlive-binaries Version: 2009-7 Severity: serious User: debian...@lists.debian.org Usertags: piuparts piuparts.d.o Hi, during a test with piuparts I noticed some packages fail to install if tex-common and texlive-binaries are to be installed together. I dont fully understand why this happens, but hope we can together figure out what happens, and reassign this bug to the right package. From the attached log of mftrace (scroll to the bottom...): Setting up tex-common (2.06) ... [...] Running mktexlsr. This may take some time... done. No packages found matching texlive-base. dpkg: error processing tex-common (--configure): subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of texlive-binaries: texlive-binaries depends on tex-common (= 2.00); however: Package tex-common is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing texlive-binaries (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of piuparts-depends-dummy: piuparts-depends-dummy depends on texlive-base-bin; however: Package texlive-base-bin is not installed. Package texlive-binaries which provides texlive-base-bin is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing piuparts-depends-dummy (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured Errors were encountered while processing: tex-common texlive-binaries piuparts-depends-dummy E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) Alone, both packages install fine: http://piuparts.debian.org/squeeze/source/t/tex-common.html http://piuparts.debian.org/squeeze/source/t/texlive-bin.html At least the following packages are affected: sid/fail/lilypond-data_2.12.3-7.log sid/fail/tex4ht_20090611-1.1.log squeeze/fail/dvipng_1.12-3.log squeeze/fail/fig2sty_1 squeeze/fail/itrans-fonts_5.3-8.log squeeze/fail/latex-cjk-japanese-wadalab_0.20050817-15.log squeeze/fail/maxima-emacs_5.21.1-2.log squeeze/fail/mftrace_1.2.16-1.log squeeze/fail/m-tx_0.60c-1.log squeeze/fail/musixtex-slurps_92a-7.log squeeze/fail/tex4ht-common_20090611-1.log Please cc: me on replies. cheers, Holger Start: 2010-02-25 14:29:11 UTC Package: mftrace Priority: extra Section: tex Installed-Size: 172 Maintainer: Julian Gilbey j...@debian.org Architecture: amd64 Version: 1.2.16-1 Depends: python, python-central (= 0.6.11), potrace | autotrace, t1utils, texlive-base-bin, libc6 (= 2.7) Suggests: fontforge, ghostscript Filename: pool/main/m/mftrace/mftrace_1.2.16-1_amd64.deb Size: 45252 MD5sum: e909eea099f902ced53fd6b36aa15826 SHA1: 00e06a0e7d257c3bc66926724ad70befaf9da491 SHA256: e71c453b2bc22466ddd668d917a06396a4c0b96c6243f45aa916ca608ecc46c9 Description: Converts Metafont fonts into Type1 fonts mftrace is a small Python program that lets you trace a TeX bitmap font (a METAFONT font) into a PFA or PFB font (A PostScript Type1 Scalable Font). . Type1 fonts offer many advantages over bitmaps, as they allow PostScript files to render correctly on printers with many resolutions. Moreover, Ghostscript can generate much better PDF, if given scalable fonts. Python-Version: current Tag: implemented-in::python, interface::commandline, role::program, use::converting, works-with::font Executing: sudo /org/piuparts.debian.org/sbin/piuparts --warn-symlinks --warn-on-others --warn-on-leftovers-after-purge --scriptsdir /etc/piuparts/scripts/ --tmpdir /org/piuparts.debian.org/tmp -ad squeeze -b squeeze.tar.gz --mirror http://piatti.debian.org/debian/ mftrace Guessed: debian 0m0.0s INFO: -- 0m0.0s INFO: To quickly glance what went wrong, scroll down to the bottom of this logfile. 0m0.0s INFO: FAQ available at http://wiki.debian.org/piuparts/FAQ 0m0.0s INFO: -- 0m0.0s INFO: piuparts version 0.39~201002251129 starting up. 0m0.0s INFO: Command line arguments: /org/piuparts.debian.org/sbin/piuparts --warn-symlinks --warn-on-others --warn-on-leftovers-after-purge --scriptsdir /etc/piuparts/scripts/ --tmpdir /org/piuparts.debian.org/tmp -ad squeeze -b squeeze.tar.gz --mirror http://piatti.debian.org/debian/ mftrace 0m0.0s INFO: Running on: Linux piatti 2.6.32.9-dsa-amd64 #1 SMP Tue Feb 23 18:40:58 CET 2010 x86_64 0m0.0s DEBUG: Created temporary directory /org/piuparts.debian.org/tmp/tmpwvwVQo 0m0.0s DEBUG: Unpacking squeeze.tar.gz into /org/piuparts.debian.org/tmp/tmpwvwVQo 0m0.0s DEBUG: Starting command: ['tar', '-C', '/org/piuparts.debian.org/tmp/tmpwvwVQo', '-zxf', 'squeeze.tar.gz'] 0m3.2s DEBUG: Command ok: ['tar', '-C', '/org/piuparts.debian.org/tmp/tmpwvwVQo', '-zxf', 'squeeze.tar.gz'] 0m3.2s DEBUG: Created policy-rc.d and chmodded it. 0m3.2s DEBUG: Starting command: ['chroot', '/org/piuparts.debian.org/tmp/tmpwvwVQo', 'apt-get', 'update'] 0m5.0s DUMP: Get:1
Bug#603068: tex-common,texlive-binaries: can't be installed together
Hi, On Mittwoch, 10. November 2010, Holger Levsen wrote: At least the following packages are affected: [list ommitted, was created with grep piuparts-depends-dummy depends on texlive-base-bin; however: ] but there are more: hol...@piatti:/org/piuparts.debian.org/master$ grep piuparts-depends-dummy depends on texlive-binaries | texlive-base-bin */fail/*.log|cut -d: -f1| sort -u sid/fail/jlatex209-base_2.1-1.1.log sid/fail/jtex-base_2.1-1.1.log sid/fail/multex-base_1.0-1.1.log sid/fail/xdvik-ja_22.84.13-j1.34-3.log squeeze/fail/jlatex209-base_2.1-1.1.log squeeze/fail/jtex-base_2.1-1.1.log squeeze/fail/multex-base_1.0-1.1.log squeeze/fail/xdvik-ja_22.84.13-j1.34-3.log Please cc: me on replies. cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#603068: tex-common,texlive-binaries: can't be installed together
Hi Holger,
Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org wrote:
Hi,
during a test with piuparts I noticed some packages fail to install if
tex-common and texlive-binaries are to be installed together. I dont fully
understand why this happens, but hope we can together figure out what
happens, and reassign this bug to the right package.
I cannot reproduce this in a sid chroot on i386.
From the attached log of mftrace (scroll to the bottom...):
Setting up tex-common (2.06) ...
Why 2.06? 2.07 was uploaded to sid in February, 2.08 in June.
[...]
Running mktexlsr. This may take some time... done.
No packages found matching texlive-base.
dpkg: error processing tex-common (--configure):
I get:
Setting up tex-common (2.08) ...
[...]
Running mktexlsr. This may take some time... done.
texlive-base is not ready, delaying updmap-sys call
texlive-base is not ready, skipping fmtutil-sys --all call
Setting up texlive-common (2009-11) ...
This is the code in the postinst that generates the message:
if dhit_libkpathsea_configured; then
if which updmap-sys /dev/null; then
# we also have to check that texlive-base is installed
# and configured, otherwise we cannot be sure that
# all necessary basic files are present
#
# dpkg-query has two defects wrt not existing packages
# - it is noisy to stderr
# - it returns 1
# so shut both errors up
stat=$(dpkg-query -W -f='${Status}' texlive-base
2/dev/null || true)
case $stat in
install ok installed)
do_it=1
;;
*)
do_it=0
;;
esac
if [ $do_it = 0 ] ; then
echo texlive-base is not ready, delaying updmap-sys
call 2
else
tempfile=$(mktemp -p /tmp updmap.)
printf Running updmap-sys. This may take some time...
On your system, dpkg-query says
No packages found matching texlive-base.
which should be on stderr which is supposed to be discarded (an if it
was on stdout, it would end up in the stat variable anyway).
I don't get it.
At least the following packages are affected:
Irrespective of whether tex-common has a bug, all those packages are
probably buggy, since it seems they depend on texlive-binaries. This
package does not provide any functionality to outsiders. Only with
texlive-base can they expect anything usable.
Regards, Frank
--
Dr. Frank Küster
VCD Miltenberg, ADFC Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg
B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg
Debian Developer (TeXLive)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#603068: tex-common,texlive-binaries: can't be installed together
reassign 603068 piuparts # taking the bug back until its clear where its from thanks Hi Frank, On Mittwoch, 10. November 2010, Frank Küster wrote: I cannot reproduce this in a sid chroot on i386. I've been using squeeze here... Why 2.06? 2.07 was uploaded to sid in February, 2.08 in June. that test seems to have been done some time ago, I can see that tex-common 2.08 is in squeeze at the moment. I'm not convinced this is the cause, but let me reschedule those tests... I'll come back to this bug in a few days, I've set a timer for me :) On your system, dpkg-query says No packages found matching texlive-base. which should be on stderr which is supposed to be discarded (an if it was on stdout, it would end up in the stat variable anyway). stderr and stdout are both collected in those logs. Irrespective of whether tex-common has a bug, all those packages are probably buggy, since it seems they depend on texlive-binaries. This package does not provide any functionality to outsiders. Only with texlive-base can they expect anything usable. h: $ apt-cache rdepends texlive-binaries texlive-binaries Reverse Depends: xmltex |xdvik-ja texlive-lang-polish texlive-lang-indic texlive-lang-greek texlive-lang-czechslovak texlive-lang-cyrillic texlive-science texlive-pstricks texlive-math-extra texlive-latex-extra texlive-formats-extra texlive-font-utils texlive-extra-utils texlive-xetex texlive-pictures texlive-omega texlive-metapost texlive-latex-recommended texlive-latex-base texlive-full texlive-common texlive-base |multex-bin |jtex-bin pybtex ptex-bin jmpost ocamlweb musixtex |multex-base liblatex-driver-perl latex209-base okular |jtex-base |jlatex209-base dvipsk-ja cxref cxref-doc context (again, in squeeze) Should we file more bugs? cheers thanks so far, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#603068: tex-common,texlive-binaries: can't be installed together
Dear dpkg maintainers,
I have a question concerning dpkg-query, it seems that the semantics
of it has changed:
Currently, when I call
dpkg-query -W -f='${Status}' texlive-base
it returns 1 (error) if texlive-base is not installed (or going to
be installed).
This breaks installation of tex-common with texlive-binaries, but without
texlive-base.
As far as I remember in former times this was working, so is this a
recent change, and was it intended, or is this a coding error from
our side.
In principle what we are doing the in the tex-common trigger action
is to check whether texlive-base is installed, and if it is we run
some commands.
Thanks and all the best
Norbert
Norbert Preiningprein...@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
SKELLOW (adj.)
Descriptive of the satisfaction experienced when looking at a really
good dry-stone wall.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
