[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#56981: [slocate] failed to remove diversion



On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Colin Watson wrote:

> [Cc'd to debian-devel for sanity checking, and the release manager as
> this relates to (and, I believe, finally closes) multiple
> release-critical bugs.]

Apparently not but we're getting closer. :>

> > 
> > Preparing to replace slocate 2.0-1 (using .../slocate_2.1-3_i386.deb)
> > ...
> > No diversion `diversion of /usr/bin/locate to /usr/bin/locate.old by
> > slocate', none removed
> > No diversion `diversion of /usr/bin/updatedb to /usr/bin/updatedb.old
> > by slocate', none removed
> > Removing `diversion of /usr/man/man1/locate.1.gz to
> > /usr/man/man1/locate.1.gz.old by slocate'
> > dpkg-divert: rename involves overwriting `/usr/man/man1/locate.1.gz'
> > with different file `/usr/man/man1/locate.1.gz.old', not allowed
> 
> I agree with the changelog that this particular incarnation of the
> diversions mess in slocate is fixed in 2.1-4. However, it's still broken
> on my system:
> 
> # Preparing to replace slocate 2.1-3 (using .../slocate_2.1-4_i386.deb)
> # ...
> # ===============================================
> # ===Error. The following diversions still exist:
> # diversion of /usr/share/man/man1/locate.1.gz to
> # /usr/share/man/man1/locate.1.gz.old by slocate
> # diversion of /usr/share/man/man1/updatedb.1.gz to
> # /usr/share/man/man1/updatedb.1.gz.old by slocate
> # ===============================================
> # dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/slocate_2.1-4_i386.deb
> # (--unpack):
> #  subprocess pre-installation script returned error exit status 1

Ok. This is one I didn't check for. Will Fix soon.

> I feel rather responsible for this one, as it was my
> "slocate makes unhelpful diversions" bug that prompted this mess in the
> first place, so I think I ought to fix it.

Had to be done sometime. :>

> For debian-devel's benefit in the way of background, slocate used to
> dpkg-divert findutils' manpages to locate.1.gz.old and
> updatedb.1.gz.old. I asked if these could be moved to locate.old.1.gz
> and updatedb.old.1.gz instead, so that they could still be accessible
> with man if need be [1]. This evidently caused some confusion, and to
> make matters worse it's interacted badly with the move from /usr/man to
> /usr/share/man.

Ya findutils had a minor rev update and I had it on hold
as I am using a poor 33.6 modem. It changed from "" to
share hence the confusion.

> As far as I can tell, the maintainer's simply missed out one of the
> locations to which those manpages have been diverted in the past (and
> where it lived on my system). The following patch fixes this (for me, at
> least):
> 
> --- slocate-2.1/debian/preinst.orig	Wed Mar  1 03:57:59 2000
> +++ slocate-2.1/debian/preinst	Wed Mar  1 03:48:14 2000
> @@ -37,6 +37,12 @@
>  		then
>  			$DEBUG rm /usr/share/man/man1/updatedb.1.gz
>  		fi
> +		if [ -f /usr/share/man/man1/updatedb.1.gz.old ]
> +		then
> +		$DEBUG dpkg-divert --package slocate --remove --rename \
> +			--divert /usr/share/man/man1/updatedb.1.gz.old \
> +			/usr/share/man/man1/updatedb.1.gz
> +		fi
>  		if [ -f /usr/share/man/man1/updatedb.$suffix.1.gz ]
>  		then
>  		$DEBUG dpkg-divert --package slocate --remove --rename \
> @@ -82,6 +88,12 @@
>  		if [ -f /usr/share/man/man1/locate.1.gz ]
>  		then
>  			$DEBUG rm /usr/share/man/man1/locate.1.gz
> +		fi
> +		if [ -f /usr/share/man/man1/locate.1.gz.old ]
> +		then
> +		$DEBUG dpkg-divert --package slocate --remove --rename \
> +			--divert /usr/share/man/man1/locate.1.gz.old \
> +			/usr/share/man/man1/locate.1.gz
>  		fi
>  		if [ -f /usr/share/man/man1/locate.$suffix.1.gz ]
>  		then

Yep. Thanks.

> Sorry for all the confusion caused; if I have time, I'll see if I can
> work out how to simplify the preinst, which should help matters somewhat
> as the situation really is rather complicated at the moment. However, I

Acutally it should be more compilcated but hey time is finite.

> believe that all outstanding release-critical bugs against slocate are
> now closed, which is fortunate as I think it's a useful package for
> potato.
> 
> [1] This wasn't just pedantry; I was trying to answer somebody's query
>     about old locate, and wanted to get at its manpages.

No prob, man. Thanks for the input.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| R Garth Wood                    | "...most people spend little time   |
|                                 | thinking about concepts their       |
|                                 | native language is incapable of     |
| rgwood@debian.org               | expressing."  --Tim Sweeny          |


Reply to: