Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Package: tetex-base > Version: 3.0.dfsg.3-3 > Severity: serious > > Hi, > > It seems that you can't uninstall the package if things aren't set up > properly.
Hm, yes. What happens is: - tex-common is unpacked - tetex-base is unpacked - the install run fails because of an unrelated package - the buildd tries to remove the packages it just installed. The postrm script of tetex-base assumes that it would be called with abort-install in this case, not "remove". However, I now see in policy that this is only used as error-unwind if the preinst fails. This problem might actually exist in more packages, since this paragraph from Policy: ,---- | The Depends field should also be used if the postinst, prerm or postrm | scripts require the package to be present in order to run. Note, | however, that the postrm cannot rely on any non-essential packages to | be present during the purge phase. `---- seems to imply that one *can* rely on Depended-on packages to be present *and*configured* at "postrm remove". Presense is actually guaranteed AFAICS, but configuredness not. On the other hand, I'm not sure how to fix this. There's a reason why the update-* scripts fail (with an understandable error message) when the basic file is missing - so this shouldn't be changed. Should we really ignore all errors of update-* in "postrm remove"? Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
