Debian Bug report logs - #344538
tetex-base: tex-common to Pre-Depends, otherwise installation fails

version graph

Package: tetex-base; Maintainer for tetex-base is (unknown);

Reported by: Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi>

Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 15:48:16 UTC

Severity: important

Found in version tetex-base/3.0-11

Done: Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

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

From: Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: tetex-base: tex-common to Pre-Depends, otherwise installation fails
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:41:52 +0200
Package: tetex-base
Version: 3.0-11
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable

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

texte-base installation fails because it needs to execute update-language
(from tex-common), which is not yet unpacked or configured during a fresh 
install. This in turn breaks installation of jadetex and other TeX bits,
which prevents building of packages Build-Depends on TeX components.

http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=planner&ver=0.13-4&arch=hppa&stamp=1135258214&file=log&as=raw

The cure would be to move tex-comon to Pre-Depends.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDrBq/eXr56x4Muc0RAuXbAJ4nRhpoSN6dzLpfv6xXoDhJFPCdMQCfZL7p
XmQTRzVEOUsKpDyNYtPbvZ4=
=UkaJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #10 received at 344538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>
To: lamont@debian.org
Cc: 344538@bugs.debian.org, Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi>, debian-admin@lists.debian.org, debian-hppa@lists.debian.org
Subject: build problems on sarti (was: Bug#344538: tetex-base: tex-common to Pre-Depends, otherwise installation fails)
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:23:47 +0100
severity 344538 important
thanks

Hi Lamont, hi Debian admins,

during the last weeks there were a couple of FTBFS cases on sarti, the
hppa buildd, which point to severe problems on that machine.  The things
that happened did only happen on this single buildd, but did in no way
look as if they were architecture specific.  

To me it looks as if there were hardware problems.  

Previously, the bugs were resolved without notifying the maintainers how
this was achieved (or whether maybe nothing was done at all except
requeing the FTBFS package), so I can't tell what the real cause was then.

See for example this new bug:

Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi> wrote:

> Package: tetex-base
> Version: 3.0-11
> Severity: grave
> Justification: renders package unusable
>
> texte-base installation fails because it needs to execute update-language
> (from tex-common), which is not yet unpacked or configured during a fresh 
> install.

This analysis is not correct.  The script that fails is tetex-base's
postinst:

Setting up tetex-base (3.0-11) ...
Removing unchanged obsolete conffiles ... done
/var/lib/dpkg/info/tetex-base.postinst: line 678: update-language: command not found
dpkg: error processing tetex-base (--configure):
 subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 127

so tex-common (on which tetex-base depends) should be already
configured and work fine (note that both packages are architecture:
all).  But the build does not even try to install tex-common, so it
seems dpkg thinks that it is already installed:

> http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=planner&ver=0.13-4&arch=hppa&stamp=1135258214&file=log&as=raw
>
> The cure would be to move tex-comon to Pre-Depends.

No, for sure not.  In fact this particular command should work even when
tex-common is only unpacked, but unconfigured, since update-language is
a simple shell script in /usr/sbin.  If tex-common is unpacked and the
shell works, it should work, too.

So it seems something is severely amiss with the debbuild chroot on
sarti. 

Regards, Frank

P.S. I'd like to reassign this bug to "buildd.debian.org" or
"sarti.debian.org", but such a virtual package doesn't exist...
-- 
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer




Severity set to `important'. Request was from Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> to control@bugs.debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #17 received at 344538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>
To: Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi>, 344538@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#344538: tetex-base: tex-common to Pre-Depends, otherwise installation fails
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:46:15 +0100
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On 23.12.05 Martin-Éric Racine (q-funk@iki.fi) wrote:

Hi,

> texte-base installation fails because it needs to execute
> update-language (from tex-common), which is not yet unpacked or
> configured during a fresh install. This in turn breaks installation
> of jadetex and other TeX bits, which prevents building of packages
> Build-Depends on TeX components.
> 
> http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=planner&ver=0.13-4&arch=hppa&stamp=1135258214&file=log&as=raw
> 
> The cure would be to move tex-comon to Pre-Depends.
> 
I don't understand. The error message is:

/var/lib/dpkg/info/tetex-base.postinst: line 678: update-language:
command not found
dpkg: error processing tetex-base (--configure):
 subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 127

However that file must exist, when tex-common has been been unpacked.
Further the package builds fine on all other archs.

H.
-- 
sigmentation fault
[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #22 received at 344538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi>
To: Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>
Cc: lamont@debian.org, 344538@bugs.debian.org, debian-admin@lists.debian.org, debian-hppa@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: build problems on sarti (was: Bug#344538: tetex-base: tex-common to Pre-Depends, otherwise installation fails)
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:18:38 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
pe, 2005-12-23 kello 17:23 +0100, Frank Küster kirjoitti:

> Hi Lamont, hi Debian admins,
> 
> during the last weeks there were a couple of FTBFS cases on sarti, the
> hppa buildd, which point to severe problems on that machine.  The things
> that happened did only happen on this single buildd, but did in no way
> look as if they were architecture specific.  
> 
> To me it looks as if there were hardware problems.  
> 
> Previously, the bugs were resolved without notifying the maintainers how
> this was achieved (or whether maybe nothing was done at all except
> requeing the FTBFS package), so I can't tell what the real cause was then.

[...]

> The script that fails is tetex-base's postinst:
> 
> Setting up tetex-base (3.0-11) ...
> Removing unchanged obsolete conffiles ... done
> /var/lib/dpkg/info/tetex-base.postinst: line 678: update-language: command not found
> dpkg: error processing tetex-base (--configure):
>  subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 127
> 
> so tex-common (on which tetex-base depends) should be already
> configured and work fine (note that both packages are architecture:
> all).  But the build does not even try to install tex-common, so it
> seems dpkg thinks that it is already installed:
> 
> > http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=planner&ver=0.13-4&arch=hppa&stamp=1135258214&file=log&as=raw

[...]

> In fact this particular command should work even when
> tex-common is only unpacked, but unconfigured, since update-language is
> a simple shell script in /usr/sbin.  If tex-common is unpacked and the
> shell works, it should work, too.
> 
> So it seems something is severely amiss with the debbuild chroot on
> sarti. 
> 
> Regards, Frank
> 
> P.S. I'd like to reassign this bug to "buildd.debian.org" or
> "sarti.debian.org", but such a virtual package doesn't exist...

I'd like to know how things are progressing with this issue. 

My package is still stuck on hppa because of this. It has successfully
built on every other architecture. Even worse, this is the second time
that this situation prevents build-depends from being fulfilled on hppa.

Anyhow, given how hppa is already among the architectures that did not
re-qualify for Etch, I propose that, from now on, hppa be ignored for
deciding whether a package is considered valid for going into Testing.

-- 
Martin-Éric Racine
http://q-funk.iki.fi
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Thibaut VARENE <varenet@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #27 received at 344538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Thibaut VARENE <varenet@debian.org>
To: Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi>
Cc: Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>, lamont@debian.org, 344538@bugs.debian.org, debian-admin@lists.debian.org, debian-hppa@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: build problems on sarti (was: Bug#344538: tetex-base: tex-common to Pre-Depends, otherwise installation fails)
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 15:06:43 +0100
On 1/6/06, Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi> wrote:

[...]

> Anyhow, given how hppa is already among the architectures that did not
> re-qualify for Etch, I propose that, from now on, hppa be ignored for
> deciding whether a package is considered valid for going into Testing.

I believe that you are mistaken. hppa *is* Release Candidate for Etch
(see http://release.debian.org/etch_arch_qualify.html)

I don't know what's up with your particular build problem but it will
not be overlooked, please be patient, this is not the only issue we're
dealing with.

T-Bone

--
Thibaut VARENE
http://www.parisc-linux.org/~varenet/



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Kyle McMartin <kyle@mcmartin.ca>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #32 received at 344538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Kyle McMartin <kyle@mcmartin.ca>
To: Martin-Eric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi>
Cc: Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>, lamont@debian.org, 344538@bugs.debian.org, debian-admin@lists.debian.org, debian-hppa@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: build problems on sarti (was: Bug#344538: tetex-base: tex-common to Pre-Depends, otherwise installation fails)
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 11:51:43 -0500
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 02:18:38PM +0200, Martin-?ric Racine wrote:
> Anyhow, given how hppa is already among the architectures that did not
> re-qualify for Etch, I propose that, from now on, hppa be ignored for
> deciding whether a package is considered valid for going into Testing.
>

Uhm. You're wrong?

http://release.debian.org/etch_arch_qualify.html

In any case, might as well ignore it. 



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #37 received at 344538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi>
To: Kyle McMartin <kyle@mcmartin.ca>
Cc: Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>, lamont@debian.org, 344538@bugs.debian.org, debian-admin@lists.debian.org, debian-hppa@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: build problems on sarti (was: Bug#344538: tetex-base: tex-common to Pre-Depends, otherwise installation fails)
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 22:28:19 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
pe, 2006-01-06 kello 11:51 -0500, Kyle McMartin kirjoitti:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 02:18:38PM +0200, Martin-?ric Racine wrote:
> > Anyhow, given how hppa is already among the architectures that did not
> > re-qualify for Etch, I propose that, from now on, hppa be ignored for
> > deciding whether a package is considered valid for going into Testing.
> 
> Uhm. You're wrong?
> 
> http://release.debian.org/etch_arch_qualify.html

Ah. It seems I was.  My mistake.  Sorry!

> In any case, might as well ignore it. 

Well, this is the second time that installation of tetex fails on hppa.
According to the tetex maintainer, everything is kosher on his side, so
this brings the question why installation of tetex repeatedly fails and
only on hppa. Repeated occurrences of installation failure on a single
architecture is a highly suspicious matter. Granted, Planner is not an
essential package, but the situation is still bad omen.

-- 
Martin-Éric Racine
http://q-funk.iki.fi
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Thibaut VARENE <varenet@gmail.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #42 received at 344538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Thibaut VARENE <varenet@gmail.com>
To: Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi>
Cc: Kyle McMartin <kyle@mcmartin.ca>, Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>, lamont@debian.org, 344538@bugs.debian.org, debian-admin@lists.debian.org, debian-hppa@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: build problems on sarti (was: Bug#344538: tetex-base: tex-common to Pre-Depends, otherwise installation fails)
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 22:05:31 +0100
On 1/6/06, Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi> wrote:
> pe, 2006-01-06 kello 11:51 -0500, Kyle McMartin kirjoitti:

> Well, this is the second time that installation of tetex fails on hppa.
> According to the tetex maintainer, everything is kosher on his side, so
> this brings the question why installation of tetex repeatedly fails and
> only on hppa. Repeated occurrences of installation failure on a single
> architecture is a highly suspicious matter. Granted, Planner is not an
> essential package, but the situation is still bad omen.

there is no such thing as a situation, as I see it:

-rw-r--r-- 1 root root   39954 Jan  6 20:47 planner-dev_0.13-4_hppa.deb
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root     801 Jan  6 20:47 planner_0.13-4_hppa.changes
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2167556 Jan  6 20:47 planner_0.13-4_hppa.deb

I built it just fine in a local sid chroot. Just wait for buildd to
tackle the build again, that's all. A couple of weeks delay for a low
priority upload isn't a *situation*.

HTH

--
Thibaut VARENE
http://www.parisc-linux.org/~varenet/



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #47 received at 344538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi>
To: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>
Cc: debian-hppa@lists.debian.org, 344538@bugs.debian.org, Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>
Subject: Re: build problems on sarti
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:40:06 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
pe, 2006-01-06 kello 17:30 -0700, Bdale Garbee kirjoitti:
> q-funk@iki.fi (Martin-Éric Racine) writes:
> 
> >> To me it looks as if there were hardware problems.  
> 
> I don't see how you reach that conclusion?

Please read and quote carefully. 

That sentence was by Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> in response to my
bug report against tetex.  

> >> /var/lib/dpkg/info/tetex-base.postinst: line 678: update-language: command not found
> 
> Reading tetex-base.postinst, update-language is being called without an
> explicit path specification:
> 
>   # Update language.dat (update-language is in tex-common on which we depend)
>   update-language
> 
> Since this script gets put in /usr/sbin, if it's "not found" I presume it's
> because the file truly isn't present yet, /usr/sbin isn't in PATH, or the 
> execute bit in the permissions for that script isn't set.

That would not explain why hppa is the only architecture on which this
fails.  Either way, I have nothing to do with Tetex maintenance or with
sarti administration, so probably best discuss it with Frank.

-- 
Martin-Éric Racine
http://q-funk.iki.fi
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #52 received at 344538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>
To: Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi>
Cc: debian-hppa@lists.debian.org, 344538@bugs.debian.org, Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>
Subject: Re: build problems on sarti
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 19:09:56 -0700
On Sat, 2006-01-07 at 02:40 +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> pe, 2006-01-06 kello 17:30 -0700, Bdale Garbee kirjoitti:
> > q-funk@iki.fi (Martin-Éric Racine) writes:
> > 
> > >> To me it looks as if there were hardware problems.  
> > 
> > I don't see how you reach that conclusion?
> 
> Please read and quote carefully. 
> 
> That sentence was by Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> in response to my
> bug report against tetex.  

You're right.  Sorry about that.  It can get confusing when there are so
many nested quotations.

Bdale



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #57 received at 344538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch>
To: Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi>
Cc: Kyle McMartin <kyle@mcmartin.ca>, lamont@debian.org, 344538@bugs.debian.org, debian-admin@lists.debian.org, debian-hppa@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: build problems on sarti
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 10:08:53 +0100
Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi> wrote:

> Well, this is the second time that installation of tetex fails on hppa.
> According to the tetex maintainer, everything is kosher on his side, so
> this brings the question why installation of tetex repeatedly fails and
> only on hppa. Repeated occurrences of installation failure on a single
> architecture is a highly suspicious matter. Granted, Planner is not an
> essential package, but the situation is still bad omen.

mysql-dfsg-5.0 might be much more important and suffered from the same
problems. 

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #62 received at 344538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch>
To: Thibaut VARENE <varenet@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi>, Kyle McMartin <kyle@mcmartin.ca>, lamont@debian.org, 344538@bugs.debian.org, debian-admin@lists.debian.org, debian-hppa@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: build problems on sarti
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 10:10:26 +0100
Thibaut VARENE <varenet@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/6/06, Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi> wrote:
>> pe, 2006-01-06 kello 11:51 -0500, Kyle McMartin kirjoitti:
>
>> Well, this is the second time that installation of tetex fails on hppa.
>> According to the tetex maintainer, everything is kosher on his side, so
>> this brings the question why installation of tetex repeatedly fails and
>> only on hppa. Repeated occurrences of installation failure on a single
>> architecture is a highly suspicious matter. Granted, Planner is not an
>> essential package, but the situation is still bad omen.
>
> there is no such thing as a situation, as I see it:
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root   39954 Jan  6 20:47 planner-dev_0.13-4_hppa.deb
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root     801 Jan  6 20:47 planner_0.13-4_hppa.changes
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2167556 Jan  6 20:47 planner_0.13-4_hppa.deb
>
> I built it just fine in a local sid chroot. 

Of course it does - one more reason to believe that the problem is on
the side of that particular machine: Hardware problems on sarti.

> Just wait for buildd to
> tackle the build again, that's all. A couple of weeks delay for a low
> priority upload isn't a *situation*.

The *situation* is that this pops up every couple of weeks with random
packages.  Only on sarti.

Regards, Frank

-- 
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #67 received at 344538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch>
To: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>
Cc: Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi>, debian-hppa@lists.debian.org, 344538@bugs.debian.org, debian-admin@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>
Subject: hardware problems on sarti (was: build problems on sarti)
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 11:00:45 +0100
Hi, 

since I didn't receive Bdale's mail, I'm answering to Martin-Éric's answer:

> pe, 2006-01-06 kello 17:30 -0700, Bdale Garbee kirjoitti:

>> >> /var/lib/dpkg/info/tetex-base.postinst: line 678: update-language: command not found
>> 
>> Reading tetex-base.postinst, update-language is being called without an
>> explicit path specification:
>> 
>>   # Update language.dat (update-language is in tex-common on which we depend)
>>   update-language
>> 
>> Since this script gets put in /usr/sbin, if it's "not found" I presume it's
>> because the file truly isn't present yet,

The file is in the tex-common deb, and since tetex-base depends on
tex-common, tex-common should not only be unpacked, but even configured.

>> /usr/sbin isn't in PATH,

How should that happen?  Surprised I find that Policy does not specifiy
what should be in the PATH, but /usr/sbin for sure will, and Policy
specifically says that maintainer scripts should call executables
without prepending a path.

>> or the 
>> execute bit in the permissions for that script isn't set.

Since tex-common is an arch: all package, this would happen on *every*
host - and tetex-base can be installed fine even on hppa machines other
than sarti's debbuild chroot.

If you show me the error in the (te)TeX packages that cause this, I'll
be glad to fix it; but currently it doesn't seem as if there was any -
just a buildd with messy hardware (or whatever) and no communication
from the admins.  

As it stands, I'm going to downgrade all FTBFS-on-sarti bugs reported
against my packages to important unless they *really* look like
arch-specific.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #72 received at 344538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi>
To: Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch>
Cc: Thibaut VARENE <varenet@gmail.com>, Kyle McMartin <kyle@mcmartin.ca>, lamont@debian.org, 344538@bugs.debian.org, debian-admin@lists.debian.org, debian-hppa@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: build problems on sarti
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 12:00:37 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
ma, 2006-01-09 kello 10:10 +0100, Frank Küster kirjoitti:
> Thibaut VARENE <varenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 1/6/06, Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi> wrote:
> >> pe, 2006-01-06 kello 11:51 -0500, Kyle McMartin kirjoitti:
> >
> >> Well, this is the second time that installation of tetex fails on hppa.
> >> According to the tetex maintainer, everything is kosher on his side, so
> >> this brings the question why installation of tetex repeatedly fails and
> >> only on hppa. Repeated occurrences of installation failure on a single
> >> architecture is a highly suspicious matter. Granted, Planner is not an
> >> essential package, but the situation is still bad omen.
> >
> > there is no such thing as a situation, as I see it:
> >
> > I built it just fine in a local sid chroot. 
> 
> Of course it does - one more reason to believe that the problem is on
> the side of that particular machine: Hardware problems on sarti.

I think that it's not likely a hardware problem as much as a possible
misconfiguration of e.g. executable search paths. At least, Bdale's
previous e-mail leads me to believe that this is where the investigation
could start. Another place to look would be to verify whether there is
sufficient disk space to install and configure huge build-deps on Sarti.

-- 
Martin-Éric Racine
http://q-funk.iki.fi
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #77 received at 344538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch>
To: Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi>
Cc: Thibaut VARENE <varenet@gmail.com>, Kyle McMartin <kyle@mcmartin.ca>, lamont@debian.org, 344538@bugs.debian.org, debian-admin@lists.debian.org, debian-hppa@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: build problems on sarti
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 12:25:41 +0100
Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi> wrote:

> ma, 2006-01-09 kello 10:10 +0100, Frank Küster kirjoitti:
>> 
>> Of course it does - one more reason to believe that the problem is on
>> the side of that particular machine: Hardware problems on sarti.
>
> I think that it's not likely a hardware problem as much as a possible
> misconfiguration of e.g. executable search paths. At least, Bdale's
> previous e-mail leads me to believe that this is where the investigation
> could start. 

I don't think so.  Last time, it failed while configuring tetex-bin, and
the binary pdfetex was called succesfully a couple of times but failed
once; omega and aleph were each called successfully once and failed the
second time - this rather points to a TeX input file being corrupted.
For a log, see 

http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=mysql-dfsg-5.0&ver=5.0.16-1&arch=hppa&stamp=1132626014&file=log&as=raw

(btw, why are old failed buildd logs not available from
http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?arch=hppa&pkg=mysql-dfsg-5.0, I
wonder?)

> Another place to look would be to verify whether there is
> sufficient disk space to install and configure huge build-deps on Sarti.

Shouldn't this give much more failures?

Regards, Frank

-- 
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #82 received at 344538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Cc: Lamont Jones <lamont@debian.org>, debian-admin@lists.debian.org, debian-hppa@lists.debian.org, 344538@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: hppa dependency problems on build of pdns
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 14:37:53 +0100
Matthijs Mohlmann <matthijs@cacholong.nl> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I don't know where to send this else, so forgive me if this is the wrong
> mailinglist.
>
> See:
> http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=pdns&ver=2.9.19-2&arch=hppa&stamp=1135294848&file=log&as=raw
>
> [..]
[...]
> As you can see, tetex-base depends on tex-common (>= 0.12). But the hppa
> build daemon doesn't install tex-common.
>
> So can somebody tell me what's going on here ?

The same happened to the planner package, and has been reported as
#344538.  It seems that hppa buildd is broken, don't know yet whether
the buildd admin (Lamont) or anybody of the debian-admin (responsible
for the hardware) is at it.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #90 received at 344538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
To: Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Lamont Jones <lamont@debian.org>, debian-admin@lists.debian.org, debian-hppa@lists.debian.org, 344538@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: hppa dependency problems on build of pdns
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 18:26:44 -0800
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 02:37:53PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Matthijs Mohlmann <matthijs@cacholong.nl> wrote:

> > I don't know where to send this else, so forgive me if this is the wrong
> > mailinglist.

> > See:
> > http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=pdns&ver=2.9.19-2&arch=hppa&stamp=1135294848&file=log&as=raw

> > [..]
> [...]
> > As you can see, tetex-base depends on tex-common (>= 0.12). But the hppa
> > build daemon doesn't install tex-common.

> > So can somebody tell me what's going on here ?

> The same happened to the planner package, and has been reported as
> #344538.  It seems that hppa buildd is broken, don't know yet whether
> the buildd admin (Lamont) or anybody of the debian-admin (responsible
> for the hardware) is at it.

Hasn't the problem on the hppa buildd been fixed for a while?  The pdns
package (both versions 2.9.19-2 and 2.9.19-3) has built fine on that arch
now.

If the buildd wasn't installing a package that was part of the dependencies,
then it surely thought for some reason it was already installed.  If this
wasn't actually the case, it points to a buildd problem or a bug in some
maintainer script or other; either way, it seems to be corrected now.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #98 received at 344538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Cc: Lamont Jones <lamont@debian.org>, debian-admin@lists.debian.org, debian-hppa@lists.debian.org, 344538@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#344538: hppa dependency problems on build of pdns
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 11:08:14 +0100
Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 02:37:53PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> The same happened to the planner package, and has been reported as
>> #344538.  It seems that hppa buildd is broken, don't know yet whether
>> the buildd admin (Lamont) or anybody of the debian-admin (responsible
>> for the hardware) is at it.
>
> Hasn't the problem on the hppa buildd been fixed for a while?  The pdns
> package (both versions 2.9.19-2 and 2.9.19-3) has built fine on that arch
> now.

It *seems* it has been fixed; but I don't know whether it has just
disappeared, or has been fixed by human intervention, and if yes by
which.  Since the first may be true, it might as well reappear again.

> If the buildd wasn't installing a package that was part of the dependencies,
> then it surely thought for some reason it was already installed.  If this
> wasn't actually the case, it points to a buildd problem 

Which is what I've been trying to say for weeks.

> or a bug in some
> maintainer script or other;

How a bug in a maintainer script could have the result that installing
an arch-all package fails because an other arch-all package is not
there, and how this can happen on only one particular machine of one
particular architecture, this I fail to see.

> either way, it seems to be corrected now.

No, it seems to work now.  I have not indication that it has been
*corrected*, a word which to me implies that it has been dealt with by a
human being.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to LaMont Jones <lamont@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #106 received at 344538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: LaMont Jones <lamont@debian.org>
To: Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, Lamont Jones <lamont@debian.org>, debian-admin@lists.debian.org, debian-hppa@lists.debian.org, 344538@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#344538: hppa dependency problems on build of pdns
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:08:45 -0700
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 11:08:14AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> > or a bug in some
> > maintainer script or other;
> How a bug in a maintainer script could have the result that installing
> an arch-all package fails because an other arch-all package is not
> there, and how this can happen on only one particular machine of one
> particular architecture, this I fail to see.

Simple.  Buggy postrm (or was it prerm) fails, and the package is left
with all its files removed, but still marked as installed in dpkg.  And
it never gets installed again.  There have been a few packages like
this, and tetex-$mumble seems to ring a bell as one of the b0rken ones.

lamont



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #114 received at 344538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>
To: LaMont Jones <lamont@debian.org>
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-admin@lists.debian.org, debian-hppa@lists.debian.org, 344538@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#344538: hppa dependency problems on build of pdns
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:48:16 +0100
LaMont Jones <lamont@debian.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 11:08:14AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
>> > or a bug in some
>> > maintainer script or other;
>> How a bug in a maintainer script could have the result that installing
>> an arch-all package fails because an other arch-all package is not
>> there, and how this can happen on only one particular machine of one
>> particular architecture, this I fail to see.
>
> Simple.  Buggy postrm (or was it prerm) fails, and the package is left
> with all its files removed, but still marked as installed in dpkg.  And
> it never gets installed again.  There have been a few packages like
> this, and tetex-$mumble seems to ring a bell as one of the b0rken ones.

That might well be, and maybe even the new postrm or prerm scripts that
I wrote from scratch suffer from that.  But why does it only occur on
the hppa buildd, then?

And how could it be detected and fixed - of course I do remove and purge
in a pbuilder chroot all the packages I upload.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Matthijs Mohlmann <matthijs@cacholong.nl>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #122 received at 344538@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Matthijs Mohlmann <matthijs@cacholong.nl>
To: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-admin@lists.debian.org, debian-hppa@lists.debian.org, 344538@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: hppa dependency problems on build of pdns
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:37:09 +0100
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 02:37:53PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> 
>>Matthijs Mohlmann <matthijs@cacholong.nl> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>I don't know where to send this else, so forgive me if this is the wrong
>>>mailinglist.
> 
> 
>>>See:
>>>http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=pdns&ver=2.9.19-2&arch=hppa&stamp=1135294848&file=log&as=raw
> 
> 
>>>[..]
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>As you can see, tetex-base depends on tex-common (>= 0.12). But the hppa
>>>build daemon doesn't install tex-common.
> 
> 
>>>So can somebody tell me what's going on here ?
> 
> 
>>The same happened to the planner package, and has been reported as
>>#344538.  It seems that hppa buildd is broken, don't know yet whether
>>the buildd admin (Lamont) or anybody of the debian-admin (responsible
>>for the hardware) is at it.
> 
> 
> Hasn't the problem on the hppa buildd been fixed for a while?  The pdns
> package (both versions 2.9.19-2 and 2.9.19-3) has built fine on that arch
> now.
> 
I haven't fixed anything on this issue, so I'm still wondering why it's
now working in a sudden.

> If the buildd wasn't installing a package that was part of the dependencies,
> then it surely thought for some reason it was already installed.  If this
> wasn't actually the case, it points to a buildd problem or a bug in some
> maintainer script or other; either way, it seems to be corrected now.
> 
The maintainer scripts are not changed as of 2.9.18-3, then it's
actually a buildd problem. If the package was already installed then it
shouldn't fail with a "command not found".

Regards,

Matthijs Mohlmann



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#344538; Package tetex-base. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Reply sent to Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch>:
You have taken responsibility. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Notification sent to Martin-Éric Racine <q-funk@iki.fi>:
Bug acknowledged by developer. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #130 received at 344538-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch>
To: 344538-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Closing this non-bug
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:40:49 +0100
Hi,

there's no indication that there was a bug in tex-common, it really
seems to have been a buildd problem, whatever its nature.

closing,
Frank

-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)




Bug archived. Request was from Debbugs Internal Request <owner@bugs.debian.org> to internal_control@bugs.debian.org. (Mon, 18 Jun 2007 01:57:15 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Mon Apr 21 00:18:39 2014; Machine Name: buxtehude.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.