Debian Bug report logs - #261137
could not be removed when postinst didn't run

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: could not be removed when postinst didn't run

Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 23:26:50 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Package: tetex-extra
Version: 2.0.2-9
Severity: serious

Removing tetex-extra ...
/var/lib/dpkg/info/tetex-extra.postrm: line 26: cd:
/var/lib/texmf/web2c: No such file or directory
dpkg: error processing tetex-extra (--remove):
 subprocess post-removal script returned error exit status 127
 Errors were encountered while processing:
  tetex-extra
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)

tetex-extra was installed in an sbuild run for installing the
requirements for a build and was unpacked but not configured by apt yet.

Then the extraction of libxml2-dev failed for some unrelated reason and
after this tetex-extra cannot be removed because afais the postrm relies
on data the postinst (not executed, see above) generates?

-- Package-specific info:

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers experimental
  APT policy: (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.7
Locale: LANG=de_DE@euro, LC_CTYPE=de_DE@euro

Versions of packages tetex-extra depends on:
ii  dpkg                          1.10.23    Package maintenance system for Deb
ii  gsfonts                       8.14-3     Fonts for the Ghostscript interpre
ii  tetex-base                    2.0.2-9    Basic library files of teTeX
ii  tetex-bin                     2.0.2-15   The teTeX binary files
ii  ucf                           1.07       Update Configuration File: preserv

-- no debconf information

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #10 received at 261137@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org>

To: Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>, 261137@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#261137: could not be removed when postinst didn't run

Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:25:28 -0700

tags 261137 patch
thanks

On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 11:26:50PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Package: tetex-extra
> Version: 2.0.2-9
> Severity: serious
> 
> Removing tetex-extra ...
> /var/lib/dpkg/info/tetex-extra.postrm: line 26: cd:
> /var/lib/texmf/web2c: No such file or directory
> dpkg: error processing tetex-extra (--remove):
>  subprocess post-removal script returned error exit status 127
>  Errors were encountered while processing:
>   tetex-extra
> E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
> 
> tetex-extra was installed in an sbuild run for installing the
> requirements for a build and was unpacked but not configured by apt yet.
> 
> Then the extraction of libxml2-dev failed for some unrelated reason and
> after this tetex-extra cannot be removed because afais the postrm relies
> on data the postinst (not executed, see above) generates?

Here's a simple patch to fix this bug:

http://www.no-name-yet.com/patches/tetex-extra.261137.diff

Tested with dpkg --install followed by dpkg --purge, and also dpkg --unpack
followed by dpkg --purge.

-- 
 - mdz

Message #17 received at 261137@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>

To: Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org>, 261137@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#261137: could not be removed when postinst didn't run

Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 03:37:26 +0100

* Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> [2004-07-23 15:25]:
> Here's a simple patch to fix this bug:
> http://www.no-name-yet.com/patches/tetex-extra.261137.diff

Thanks, but please attach it next time so it's properly archived in
the BTS.


diff -u tetex-base-2.0.2/debian/changelog tetex-base-2.0.2/debian/changelog
diff -u tetex-base-2.0.2/debian/tetex-extra.postrm tetex-base-2.0.2/debian/tetex-extra.postrm
--- tetex-base-2.0.2/debian/tetex-extra.postrm
+++ tetex-base-2.0.2/debian/tetex-extra.postrm
@@ -23,7 +23,10 @@
 }
 
 if [ x"$1" = "xremove" ]; then
-    (cd /var/lib/texmf/web2c && rm -f amstex.fmt omega.oft lambda.oft mpost.mem metafun.mem omega.fmt lambda.fmt)
+    for file in amstex.fmt omega.oft lambda.oft mpost.mem \
+		metafun.mem omega.fmt lambda.fmt; do
+        rm -f /var/lib/texmf/web2c/$file
+    done
     command mktexlsr >/dev/null 2>&1 && mktexlsr
 #    $TEXCONFIG init
     ucf_purge

-- 
Martin Michlmayr
tbm@cyrius.com

Message #22 received at 261137@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>

To: Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>, 261137@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org>, Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#261137: could not be removed when postinst didn't run

Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 11:54:53 +0200

On 23.07.04 Rene Engelhard (rene@debian.org) wrote:

Hi,

> Removing tetex-extra ...
> /var/lib/dpkg/info/tetex-extra.postrm: line 26: cd:
> /var/lib/texmf/web2c: No such file or directory
> dpkg: error processing tetex-extra (--remove):
>  subprocess post-removal script returned error exit status 127
>  Errors were encountered while processing:
>   tetex-extra
> E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
> 
> tetex-extra was installed in an sbuild run for installing the
> requirements for a build and was unpacked but not configured by apt
> yet.
> 
root@drachi:~# dpkg -l tetex-base
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
|Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed
|/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err:uppercase=bad)
||/ Name           Version        Description
+++-==============-==============-============================================
ii  tetex-base     2.0.2-9        Basic library files of teTeX
root@drachi:~# dpkg -S /var/lib/texmf/web2c
tetex-base, tetex-bin: /var/lib/texmf/web2c

postrm of tetex-bin contains a

rm -rf /var/lib/texmf/web2c

I don't know exactly what happened here. I try to guess:
You unpacked tetex-extra, but did not configure it. I guess you could
purge tetex-bin without any error message. That took away
/var/lib/texmf/web2c and make tetex-extra fail.
We remove /var/lib/texmf/web2c, cause there are generated files in it
and doing rm -rf is more easy than figuring out which files are
generated, remove them one by one and leave the rest to dpkg.
The patch from Matt Zimmerman should fix that, thanks!
In general: Is it more clean to do an
   find /var/lib/texmf/web2c -name $filenames
in prerm instead of an rm -rf in postrm? It won't help in this
situation, cause dpkg will remove /var/lib/texmf/web2c anyway.

> Then the extraction of libxml2-dev failed for some unrelated reason
> and after this tetex-extra cannot be removed because afais the
> postrm relies on data the postinst (not executed, see above)
> generates?
> 
postrm should write to /var/lib/texmf/web2c, yes.

H.
-- 
sigmentation fault

Message #27 received at 261137@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>

To: 261137@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>, Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org>, Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#261137: could not be removed when postinst didn't run

Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 19:53:48 +0200

tags 261137 pending
stop

Thanks for the report, and thanks to Matt for the fix. I'm currently in
the last stages of testing a new major upload of tetex-base/extra, and I
was planning to do this on monday, when I have a good internet
connection again (only callup connection at home, and it will not only
be the big binary packages, but also a new orig.tar.gz).

Is this o.k., or should I try to upload from here?

Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de> wrote:

> In general: Is it more clean to do an
>    find /var/lib/texmf/web2c -name $filenames
> in prerm instead of an rm -rf in postrm? It won't help in this
> situation, cause dpkg will remove /var/lib/texmf/web2c anyway.

I currently don't see the benefit of this.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

Message #34 received at 261137@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org>

To: Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>

Cc: 261137@bugs.debian.org, Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>, Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#261137: could not be removed when postinst didn't run

Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 11:03:56 -0700

On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 07:53:48PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:

> Is this o.k., or should I try to upload from here?

I don't think that it matters whether it is fixed now, or in two days, so
long as the bug is fixed.

-- 
 - mdz

Message #39 received at 261137@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>

To: 261137@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>, Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org>, Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#261137: could not be removed when postinst didn't run

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 10:17:30 +0200

On 24.07.04 Frank Küster (frank@debian.org) wrote:
> Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de> wrote:

Hi all,

> > In general: Is it more clean to do an
> >    find /var/lib/texmf/web2c -name $filenames
> > in prerm instead of an rm -rf in postrm? It won't help in this
> > situation, cause dpkg will remove /var/lib/texmf/web2c anyway.
> 
> I currently don't see the benefit of this.
> 
Well, to make sure formats -- not created by tetex-bin -- (e.g.
jadetex) are not removed during postrm of tetex-bin. fmtutil --all in
postinst of tetex-bin will recreate them anyway.... I think you're
right. Forget about that.

H. 
-- 
sigmentation fault

Message #44 received at 261137-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>

To: 261137-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#261137: fixed in tetex-base 2.0.2a-1

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 10:47:38 -0400

Source: tetex-base
Source-Version: 2.0.2a-1

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
tetex-base, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

tetex-base_2.0.2a-1.diff.gz
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0.2a-1.diff.gz
tetex-base_2.0.2a-1.dsc
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0.2a-1.dsc
tetex-base_2.0.2a-1_all.deb
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0.2a-1_all.deb
tetex-base_2.0.2a.orig.tar.gz
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0.2a.orig.tar.gz
tetex-doc_2.0.2a-1_all.deb
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-doc_2.0.2a-1_all.deb
tetex-extra_2.0.2a-1_all.deb
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-extra_2.0.2a-1_all.deb



A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 261137@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> (supplier of updated tetex-base package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 19:48:40 +0200
Source: tetex-base
Binary: tetex-extra tetex-doc tetex-base
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.0.2a-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: high
Maintainer: teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>
Changed-By: Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>
Description: 
 tetex-base - Basic library files of teTeX
 tetex-doc  - The documentation component of the Debian teTeX packages
 tetex-extra - Additional library files of teTeX
Closes: 139900 175623 176153 177401 182324 186869 219294 223912 245599 251761 255246 255672 255891 256911 258267 259003 261137 261496
Changes: 
 tetex-base (2.0.2a-1) unstable; urgency=high
 .
   * Don't rely on /var/lib/texmf/web2c's existense in tetex-extra's
     postrm - urgency high because of this bug's severity (Closes:
     #261137). [frank]
 .
   * New upstream tarball: Repacked by the Debian team to remove files with
     non-free licenses:
 .
     - british hyphenation (ukhyphen.tex) - users, please bug the UK-TUG to
       resolve this issue! Some of the other hyphenation files mentioned in
       #139900 are not contained in 2.0.2 any more, the other were taken
       from CTAN (with clarified license). (Closes: #139900)
     - Pandora fonts (closes: #175623, #261496)
     - psfig.sty  (People still using it should consider switching
       to the graphics package. As long as this is not done you may use
       epsfig.sty from the same package) (closes: #182324)
 .
     Some files have been updated with now free versions from CTAN:
     - russion, swedish, and galician hyphenation patterns (see #139900 and
       above)
     - g-brief: license clarified, new version from CTAN (europs.sty is
       only used if available) (closes: #176153)
     - caption.sty and caption2.sty (closes: #251761)
     - fancyverb-examples in fvrb-ex.sty (closes: #177401)
 .
     Wile on the way,
     - we removed the obsolete pdfcrypt.sty. PDF encryption is no longer
       supported by pdfTeX, please use external tools! (closes: #186869)
     - include (now free) cahyph.tex and icehyph.tex in orig.tar.gz
       (Closes: #219294, #223912)
     - We updated listings.sty which was first deleted from the
       orig.tar.gz, then added in diff.gz. But the version we had in
       diff.gz had a problematic license, the new one is LPPL. euler.sty
       also is in the orig.tar.gz again.
     - we included updated kpathsea.{pdf,dvi} in the documentation (fix to
       tetex-bin's bug #253958)
     [frank] with thanks to Hilmar
 .
   * Static font map files are no longer treated as conffiles (or with
     ucf), but instead are installed as ordinary files under
     /usr/share/texmf. Nobody really needs to edit those files (and they
     can still be overriden by putting files in /usr/local/share/texmf).
     Please refer to README.debian in order to learn how to get rid of the
     old files in /etc/texmf/dvips (closes: 259003). [frank]
   * Conflict with tetex-bin (<=2.0.2-15) because older versions will fail
     to install if ukhyph.tex is missing. [frank]
   * Include a correct fancyvrb.ps (in patch-tmp) (Closes: #256911) [frank]
   * Use correct name for the tetex-xwarn binary in texfind.pl and
     texshow.pl, thanks to Hilmar (closes: #258267) [frank]
   * Remove  tetex-extra's formats in postrm, also upon upgrade - thanks to
     Hilmar (closes: 245599) [frank]
   * Translations:
     - Updated Danish translation, thanks to Claus Hindsgaul (Closes:
       #255246) [frank].
     - Updated japanese translation, thanks to Kenshi Muto
       <kmuto@debian.org> (closes: #255672) [frank]
     - Updated french translation, thanks to Christian Perrier
       <bubulle@debian.org> (closes: #255891) [frank]
Files: 
 ee5da82f65c1ab4e81f3d372d4b5430c 838 tex optional tetex-base_2.0.2a-1.dsc
 700087ae24393d5835b4aa0f2c8c6f9f 52770971 tex optional tetex-base_2.0.2a.orig.tar.gz
 23f6c3e1e692b4634a53312b518f96ef 139211 tex optional tetex-base_2.0.2a-1.diff.gz
 f6983111c081d60d7c79c53783d29e61 14349890 tex optional tetex-base_2.0.2a-1_all.deb
 f7227dba70fa04c32afe7c0e6aa6bb07 10466026 tex optional tetex-extra_2.0.2a-1_all.deb
 b2c32f1b3dfb93db89b1de88460787de 27779578 doc optional tetex-doc_2.0.2a-1_all.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBBRWD+xs9YyJS+hoRApaGAKCNEKS6F9QOK/gmmX5dziNhLkGckwCgq7wq
d86Q5mR70HIK1JWuLwsLN1w=
=K9sH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.