Luk Claes <l...@debian.org> wrote: > Buildds using unauthenticated packages is quite normal unfortunately as > incoming has still no proper authentication.
Okay, I wasn't aware of that - I didn't remember such warnings, and the build logs I'd had looked at for comparison didn't have it. > Getting tex-common in a broken state on the buildds is very probably a > bug in your package and not one to rely on to break things further btw. > > Not amused. Me neither. Could you please show me where you find any indication that there's a problem with tex-common or a texlive package? Looking at 531581, the build log at https://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?&pkg=matplotlib&ver=0.98.5.3-1&arch=hppa&stamp=1243891746&file=log shows that we have - two segfaults in dpkg while unpacking libgtk2.0-0 and libxine1-console then the buildd decides to purge everything, and we encounter - either a small bug in the dbus postinst script upon purge, or disk problems because the just-created /var/run/dbus is missing - either a bug in tex-common or disk problems, since 05TeXmf.cnf is not present and hence tex-common cannot generate texmf.cnf; the following tex-related packages fail as a consequence of that - a bug in libkpathsea4 or dpkg or disk problems, since there's no file libkpathsea.so.4 - a bug in python-twisted-core's postinst, or a dpkg or disk problem - matplotlib - after that, a bug in dpkg: tex-common is removed and purged before (in that order: texlive-base, texlive-base-bin, texlive-common, lots of other texlive packages. And that is done although all of them depend on tex-common either directly, or by depending on texlive-common which in turn depends on tex-common. I have no idea where anyone can see a reason that in this whole mess, the main bug is the fact that tex-common somehow does not create 05TeXMF.cnf. Or have bugs reported against each package that seems to have a problem here? No, at least libkpathsea4 has an independent error, but no bug report. If anyone shows me why I should think of a bug in a TeX package, then I'll take that indication as a starting point for research. But right now the only thing I have is that an ucf-controlled file of tex-common which has been installed a gazillion of times on buildds without problems is missing here. And that on a buildd which has lots of other problems. And as for bug #530832, there's also a Dependency problem that seems to be related to dpkg: The following packages will be REMOVED: texlive-base [...] Removing texlive-base ... /var/lib/dpkg/info/texlive-base.postrm: line 124: update-texmf-config: command not found dpkg: error processing texlive-base (--remove): subprocess post-removal script returned error exit status 127 Errors were encountered while processing: texlive-base E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) apt-get failed. Package installation failed Trying to reinstall removed packages: /usr/bin/sudo /usr/bin/apt-get --purge $CHROOT_OPTIONS -q -y install texlive-base Reading package lists... Building dependency tree... Reading state information... texlive-base is already the newest version. The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer required: libpcre3 Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove them. The following extra packages will be installed: [...] tex-common texlive-base-bin texlive-base-bin-doc texlive-common texlive-doc-base So texlive-base was installed, although tex-common and its other dependencies weren't. I have no intention to change texlive-base to be able to be removed (not purged!) when its dependencies are not present. Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Debian Developer (TeXLive) VCD Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg, ADFC Miltenberg B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
