Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You seem to fear things that I think are good ;-) This just means that
> Michael's system is fine, and my knowledge of shell is not.
OK, so if I understood right, there is nothing to fix on the systems
where the installation of tex-common 0.36 failed. The
Florent Rougon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> However, the bashism is in an if-clause, and I'm not sure whether the
>> shell finds a syntax error while reading the file, or only if it
>> actually gets there. If it does get there, this means the p
Hi,
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, the bashism is in an if-clause, and I'm not sure whether the
> shell finds a syntax error while reading the file, or only if it
> actually gets there. If it does get there, this means the postinst
> script was just about to tell you that it
Hi Michael,
Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: tex-common
> Version: 0.36
> Severity: serious
>
> My default shell is dash. An upgrade fails with the following message:
Thanks for reporting, and sorry for the error.
> Running checkbashisms /var/lib/dpkg/info/tex-common.postinst
Package: tex-common
Version: 0.36
Severity: serious
My default shell is dash. An upgrade fails with the following message:
Setting up tex-common (0.36) ...
/var/lib/dpkg/info/tex-common.postinst: 91: Syntax error: Bad substitution
dpkg: error processing tex-common (--configure):
subprocess post-
5 matches
Mail list logo
