severity 403641 important thanks On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 07:36:10PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > do you consider the following scenario release-critical? If yes, we > have more than one RC bug:
> - $packagemanager install B X > - package A is unpacked > - package B which Depends: A is unpacked > - package X which is unrelated is tried to unpack, but fails (e.g. a > file conflict > - $packagmanager starts removing all new packages > - the postrm of B is called with "remove" and fails since it assumes > that A is configured and uses commands which fail > This happened with tetex-base on a build, but the problem exists in all > packages that use dh_installtex with any other options than common > debhelper ones. > The Policy document is a bit misleading in this respect, I have filed a > bug about it (no number yet), since it doesn't mention any difference > between "relying on being present" and "relying on being configured". > Therefore I suspect that many more packages suffer from this problem. > And actually each command used in any "postrm remove" can become > dependent on "configuredness" by later uploads of the depended-on > package, so this is a general problem for all types of packages. As might be obvious from my reply to the policy discussion, I don't think this is release-critical, no. :) Downgrading accordingly; Andi has unblocked the new version of the package anyway which handles this case, so this is more or less a formality at this point. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
