On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 01:37:47PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 01:31:42PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 12:46:39PM +0200, Sascha Silbe wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 12:26:14PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > > > >>Nop, it shows some "registering" lines instead: > > > >Did it show these "registering" lines the first time, below > > > >"Setting up > > > >python-xpcom" instead of "Setting up xulrunner-1.9.1" ? > > > Nop, there was no output from python-xpcom. > > > > Would you happen to also have the log *before* "Setting up > > xulrunner-1.9.1" ? > > I have a theory, but I can't reproduce it by hand. > > Actually, my theory is right, and I could reproduce. > The problem is that xulrunner run its registration script before > python-support registration takes place... I'll get in contact with > python people for an idea, here.
So, the best will be to have python-xpcom predepend on xulrunner-1.9.1. This way, when xulrunner's postinst runs, there will be no way to have a half installed python-xpcom in the way (i.e. unpacked, but without update-python-modules -p having been run). Then once python-xpcom gets installed, xulrunner's trigger kicks in and registers the python-xpcom components with a fully installed python-xpcom. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
