On 2009-07-20 10:08 +0200, Colin Watson wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 09:53:34AM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: >> On 2009-07-20 09:21 +0200, Colin Watson wrote: >> > On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 06:58:43AM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: >> >> Retrying succeeded, so a bumping the versioned "Replaces" on groff-base >> >> to (<< 1.20.1-1) should solve the problem. >> > >> > Actually, no - if you look carefully at the two 1.20.1-1 .debs you'll >> > see that *both* of them contain the /usr/share/groff/current symlink, >> > which is clearly an error (this happened because upstream added code to >> > install that symlink and I didn't notice). >> >> Well, groff-base (but not groff) 1.18.1.1-22 also had the symlink, but >> it was pointing to a _different_ directory. Since version 1.14.6, dpkg >> does not treat multiple symlinks to the _same_ directory as a file >> conflict, so groff could be upgraded after groff-base 1.20.1-1 was >> installed. > > Right, but the bug was that groff should never have contained that > symlink in the first place, so making it replace groff-base would not > have fixed the bug - indeed, it would have just come back with the very > next version of groff if I'd "fixed" it with a versioned Replaces. :-)
Indeed. > (While fixing this bug, I did make the new groff-base replace groff > 1.20.1-1 as well, just in case people's dpkg databases had got confused > about the ownership of that symlink.) That is actually necessary, since /usr/share/groff/current is now owned by both groff and groff-base and a new upstream release that changes the symlink would bring up the file conflict again. Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
