Discussed on IRC some more. Summary:
 - Dropping the Breaks: from the theme packages and using a versioned Depends: 
plymouth is semantically equivalent but should avoid the deconfigure (to be 
confirmed)
 - We should fix all the themes' prerm to accept "deconfigure" to fix future 
upgrades.
 - The above should avoid having to SRU all themes (as this wouldn't guarantee 
successful upgrades).

IRC discussion for the record:

08:15:03     pitti | didrocks: do you know, does that only affect lubuntu-logo 
for some reason, or a gazillion other themes too? I. e. the mutual Breaks:
08:15:16     pitti | mutual Breaks: forces "deconfigure", i. e. I wonder if we 
can avoid that somehow
08:17:07  didrocks | hey pitti! I'm afraid that's pretty much global, indeed
08:17:38  didrocks | pitti: as most of the themes seems to be copy and paste 
and they copied a wrong prerm
08:18:08  didrocks | yeah, the Breaks/Replaces is just about the moving files, 
to ensure we don't end up for partial upgrade with an non working theme
08:18:09     pitti | didrocks: oh, so that's not just plymouth's prerm, but 
*all* prerms of logo packages?
08:18:34  didrocks | pitti: yeah, plymouth prerm is fine (let me confirm in a 
minute), it's the ones in the logo packages for sure at least
08:18:42  didrocks | and most of them are copy/paste :/
08:18:47     pitti | didrocks: so instead of SRUing all logo packages and 
plymouth itseslf, it seems easier to me to just drop the Breaks: of the logo 
packages in xenial?
08:19:18  didrocks | yeah, that would be slightely incorrect, but there is 
nothing else anyway that should call deconfigure on those packages
08:19:21     pitti | didrocks: oh, ok, I misinterpreted the log, it's indeed 
not plymouth itself
08:19:32     pitti | didrocks: right, which is how it got unnoticed for so long
08:19:37  didrocks | we should still fix them in xenial though, so that this 
doesn't happen in the future
08:19:39  didrocks | well, years :p
08:19:52  didrocks | some packages were untouched since 2010/2011…
08:19:55     pitti | didrocks: curiously I had exactly the same case for 
ifupdown and udev two days ago (mutual Breaks:, missing deconfigure in 
udev.prerm)
08:20:22     pitti | didrocks: yes; so my proposal is to fix all the logo 
packages in xenial with (1) teaching prerm about deconfigure, and (2) dropping 
the Breaks: to fix upgrades
08:20:27  didrocks | I don't know why people are doing this *) echo "Call with 
unknown parameter; exit 1
08:20:41     pitti | didrocks: I had that too; I think that was in some 
standard templates
08:20:55     pitti | but that's a bit overzealous indeed
08:20:59  didrocks | pitti: as most cases are empty anyway, I would suggest we 
drop that
08:21:01  didrocks | yeah
08:21:22  didrocks | so yeah, we can workaround and avoid the SRU by removing 
the Breaks
08:21:28  didrocks | (in plymouth)
08:21:36     pitti | didrocks: oh, in plymouth, not in the logo packages?
08:21:45  didrocks | the Breaks in plymouth against logo packages
08:21:46     pitti | didrocks: you should drop it on the side which has the  
Replaces:, not the other one
08:21:58  didrocks | there is no Replaces
08:22:00  didrocks | just Breaks
08:22:25  didrocks | basically, new plymouth needs themes in /usr/share instead 
of /lib
08:22:26     pitti | Replaces: lubuntu-plymouth-theme, plymouth (<< 0.8.1-1~)
08:22:36     pitti | oh, I see, that's much older, not from this transition
08:22:39  didrocks | yeah
08:22:51  didrocks | the breaks is just to ensure we don't install new logo 
without new plymouth
08:22:54  didrocks | and vice-versa
08:23:13     pitti | didrocks: that could also become a versioned depends: on 
the logo (which is simpler)
08:23:33     pitti | i. e. Depends: plymouth + Breaks: plymouth (<< 
0.9.2-3ubuntu1~) == Depends: plymouth (>= 0.9.2-3ubuntu1~)
08:23:46     pitti | (was looking at plymouth-theme-lubuntu-logo)
08:23:54  didrocks | but if you upgrade plymouth alone
08:24:01  didrocks | you are in a "broken" situation
08:24:07  didrocks | (for some definition of broken, for sure ;))
08:24:18     pitti | didrocks: yes, that's why I think we should keep the 
Breaks: on plymouht and drop it from the themes
08:24:46  didrocks | the breaks in plymouth won't force deconfigure in -logo?
08:24:57     pitti | didrocks: only a mutual Breaks: forces that
08:25:07     pitti | didrocks: if it's one-sided, the broken package gets 
upgraded first
08:25:14  didrocks | oh didn't know that, was thinking one way was enough if 
plymouth was going to get configured first
08:25:17  didrocks | ok
08:25:25  didrocks | so apt reorders
08:25:27  didrocks | making sense
08:25:47     pitti | didrocks: but if both packages break each other, there is 
no order which would always be consistant, so apt randomly picks one package, 
deconfigures that, and upgrades both
08:25:48  didrocks | I can handle it then
08:25:53  didrocks | indeed
08:26:11  didrocks | we should maybe at some point scan the archive to see if 
this broken template is used elsewhere
08:26:15     pitti | didrocks: I *think*, plymouth breaks: theme (<< version) 
and theme Depends: plymouth (>= version) should work
08:26:29  didrocks | yeah, worth a try anyway :)

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1524480

Title:
  package plymouth 0.9.2-3ubuntu2 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess
  installed pre-removal script returned error exit status 1

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lubuntu-artwork/+bug/1524480/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

Reply via email to