On Sat, Jul 19, 2025 at 11:06:17AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: > FWIW, I checked the stable version of bacula-common and it has the same > story. The `systemd-tmpfiles` call only appears in the `postinst`, so there > is no way I can find that a `bacula-common.preinst` call would trigger > `systemd-tmpfiles`
It turns out multiple issues are involved here: 1) bacula-common's preinst fails 2) because of the preinst failure, dpkg calls abort-upgrade; in this step systemd-tmpfiles fails. This is because libc6 did not get upgraded yet, which is caused by #1108193 3) dpkg does not inform us that it calls abort-upgrade. Looking at 1) closer, it appears bacula-common intentionally defaults to breaking upgrades, by means of defaulting a debconf question of "Do you want to continue with the upgrade?" to <No>. I doubt this is acceptable. bacula-common already skips the question under piuparts, which seems to me like a hack. Other automated tools (QA or configuration management tools) are not considered. IMO the default needs to become <Yes>. Best, Chris
