Analysis of the upgrade logs and further discussion on IRC shows that
it's infeasible to fix this in samba. The problem arises when perl-
modules is unpacked without libperl5.12/perl-base, and then samba is
unpacked. Moving the update-inetd code from the postrm to the prerm may
help in some
Given the number of dupes, shouldn't this be raised to a Critical level?
This has now broken dozens of upgrades that we know about, and I'm sure
many more that haven't bothered to report it.
Robie's suggestion to simplify update-inetd, given that these are very
primitive elements, seems the best
I discussed this bug at length with Adam on Friday afternoon. Adam is on
vacation now so I'll try and reproduce my memory and conclusions from
this conversation.
Some thoughts from that discussion:
1) perl-modules (which provides File::Temp) seems to spend a lot of time
unconfigured in the
** Tags added: rls-mgr-p-tracking
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to samba in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/862129
Title:
samba postrm depends on packages not guaranteed to be configured
To manage
** Tags added: regression-release
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to samba in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/862129
Title:
samba postrm depends on packages not guaranteed to be configured
To manage
** Also affects: samba (Ubuntu Oneiric)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Also affects: samba (Ubuntu Precise)
Importance: High
Status: Triaged
** Changed in: samba (Ubuntu Oneiric)
Status: New = Triaged
** Changed in: samba (Ubuntu Oneiric)
Importance:
Historically, we wait for postrm before calling update-inetd --remove
because the enabled/disabled status of an inetd service is admin
configuration data, so we only want to remove it on purge.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Server Team, which is
I catch your point, Steve, but doesn't it seem silly to have an enabled
service in inted that references binaries that no longer exist on disk?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to samba in Ubuntu.
Or is this being triggered by upgrading/mangling samba in the middle of
perl transitions? I think I need to look more deeply into the dupes and
see what's going on here, cause I refuse to believe a ton of people are
doing this on purpose.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a
And it occurs to me that I maintain a package that calls update-inetd in
postrm too. Hrm. Did it used to fail more gracefully when it wasn't
fully configured? This may need a more general looking-at rather than
just samba (though I do find it curious that samba users in particular
seem to so
but doesn't it seem silly to have an enabled service in inetd
that references binaries that no longer exist on disk?
Well, it's possible to use a different marker for package-level
disabling vs. admin-level disabling of a service... note that the postrm
*always* disables it when we're not
** Changed in: samba (Ubuntu)
Milestone: ubuntu-11.10 = oneiric-updates
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to samba in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/862129
Title:
samba postrm depends on packages not
** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #644963
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=644963
** Also affects: samba via
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=644963
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
--
You received this bug notification because you are a
** Changed in: samba
Status: Unknown = New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to samba in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/862129
Title:
samba postrm depends on packages not guaranteed to be configured
To
The attached script reproduces the problem on a minimal fresh oneiric
install.
** Attachment added: test.sh
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/samba/+bug/862129/+attachment/2534711/+files/test.sh
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Server Team,
** Branch linked: lp:~racb/ubuntu/oneiric/samba/862129
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to samba in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/862129
Title:
samba postrm depends on packages not guaranteed to be configured
Surely, we can just move the update-inetd call to prerm? I can't
imagine why you'd want to wait around for postrm before calling it
anyway.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Server Team, which is subscribed to samba in Ubuntu.
** Summary changed:
- package samba 2:3.5.8~dfsg-1ubuntu2.3 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess
new post-removal script returned error exit status 2
+ samba postrm depends on packages not guaranteed to be configured
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
I'm thinking along the lines of the attached patch (untested). Some
questions:
1) Is this the right approach?
2) Is dpkg-query the right way to get the status of the update-inetd package?
3) What about triggers-awaiting and triggers-pending? What should the behaviour
be in these cases? Is it OK
The attachment Untested patch of this bug report has been identified
as being a patch. The ubuntu-reviewers team has been subscribed to the
bug report so that they can review the patch. In the event that this is
in fact not a patch you can resolve this situation by removing the tag
'patch' from
20 matches
Mail list logo