On 03/29/2015 08:01 PM, Niko Tyni wrote: > Glad to see progress on this! > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 05:46:44PM +0200, Kasper Loopstra wrote: > >> However, I am quite sure that I removed /usr/local/share before starting >> off with the upgrade, so perhaps there is something wrong with the >> upgrade path between wheezy and jessie. So below is what's in the >> /usr/local/share after an upgrade. Is there anything wrong here? Or >> shouldn't I have removed /usr/local/share without recreating it with >> correct permissions? > I think whatever recreated /usr/local/share without world read+execute > bits is buggy and should be fixed before the release. Now we just need > to find it. > > What's your umask setting during the upgrade? 0022 >> root@chloromethane:/usr/local# ls -la share/ >> total 20 >> drwxr-x--x+ 5 root root 4096 Mar 29 13:35 . >> drwxr-xr-x+ 5 root root 4096 Mar 29 13:14 .. >> drwxrwsr-x+ 2 root staff 4096 Mar 29 13:34 ca-certificates >> drwxrwsr-x+ 4 root staff 4096 Mar 29 13:35 emacs >> drwxrwsr-x+ 2 root staff 4096 Mar 29 13:14 texmf > The time stamps seem to suggest that the package > that created /usr/local/share/texmf is to blame. > > However, that would be tex-common AFAICS, but its post-installation > script doesn't seem to do this. In fact, it will not create > /usr/local/share/texmf at all if /usr/local/share is missing. > > if you are able to recreate this, would it be possible for you to first > remove /usr/local/share and then upgrade piecemeal, maybe starting with > the tex* packages you have installed? Perhaps that would > pinpoint the guilty package. I'll try, but piecemeal upgrades are kind of difficult (I tried for spamassassin), and I see things pull in so much dependencies it's almost the entire upgrade anyway. Is there some apt-get magic I am missing?
Thanks, Kasper. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
