Eric Valette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I (of course!) took the postinst of the failing packages aka tex-common. > (Do not assume I'm stupid please).
Sorry, I didn't want to offend; I just had a problem understanding your sentence, and that might well be due to my english being not good enough, not yours. > When I ran "postinst configure" it > prompted a dialog window asking to either keep my installed version of a > configuration file (THAT configuration file name I do not remember) upon rereading, I get the meaning, sorry. > and > I selected replace by maintainer version as I wanted to be sure the > problem was not comming from incompatible version of this configuration > file. The "postins" command suceeded and the "apt-get -f install" after it. > > So if the problem was involing only "debconf", I suspect the run by hand > "postinst configure" would have not solved it magically. You can > continue to play ping pong between tex-common and debconf or close the > bug. I guess it will resurface later via another bug. If there is a bug in tex-common, then there are two bugs, one in debconf, and one in tex-common. After running the tex-common postinst script again, it might be that the debconf code that caused the error message was no longer called. But I still do not understand things here. $ grep "db_" tex-common/debian/* | grep -v 'true$' tex-common/debian/config.in:db_version 2.0 tex-common/debian/config.in:db_go tex-common/debian/config.in: db_go tex-common/debian/postinst.in:db_version 2.0 which means that all lines with calls to db_* end with || true except for db_version and db_go. This seems to indicate to me that *if* we made an error with debconf, it wouldn't reveal itself as a failing maintainer script. Second, how is it possible that a conffile dialog (in fact it must be a ucf configuration file dialog, but that looks similar) pops up during a second invocation of the postinst script, unless you have changed the file meanwhile? ucf is called only once in the postinst script, and this is - after sourcing /usr/share/debconf/confmodule and calling db_version, but before any other debconf use - only conditional on the first parameter being configure or reconfigure. I don't see how a configuration file could be on your system that is neither any old known nor the new version unless one of two things happened: - it was a problem with your local debconf installation, and it was in fact fixed by reinstalling it, although you first said it wasn't (how did you check?). In this case, the postinst script failed right while loading confmodule, and never got to the file changed dialog. - or you have edited some configuration file below /etc/texmf between the different postinst invocations. But in this case I cannot see how changing the conffile would affect later debconf invocations - we only use db_get and db_fset, and we do that without checking any files. > BTW the bug leading for the change in tex-common 0.9->0.10 looks very > similar as my debconf default config is "dialog/LOW". Which bug do you mean - #337073? Why do you think it looks similar - it's about an error in a chmod invocation, while yours involves a Perl error in Debconf. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
