On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Julien Cristau <jcris...@debian.org> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 18:17:46 +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote: > >> Pictures^Wdpkg-status files or it didn't happen, as I said multiple times >> now. >> > You'll find the (compressed) status file attached. […] > E: Could not perform immediate configuration on 'openjdk-6-jre'. Please see > man 5 apt.conf under APT::Immediate-Configure for details. (2)
Thanks. After wasting a few days on this now I know at least who is at fault: me. And as I am not a dependency I pass the blame on to Java5 and OpenOffice. [I will spare you the details now, you will find some below as very long P.S.] I have done very few tests, but it seems like bringing openoffice.org-core back (as a transitional package) is the simplest workaround. If I remember right all status-files I have seen so far about this issue (not that many, but yeah) included openoffice (as I wondered why it was touched so early and wanted to investigate this after wheezy), so while this sounds indeed crazy I guess it would solve all known issues. Hence CC'ing the previous maintainers to gaining some intelligence on how feasible this is. (Such a transition package needs to break at least "openoffice.org-report-builder-bin" as it is otherwise not removed on upgrade. I have no idea what else / how depends should look like) Alternatively we could provide a "fixed" apt/squeeze which removes the most offending lines (and reopens bugs), but the usual problems arise from that. Best regards David Kalnischkies, who works on a timemachine now to travel ~3 years into the past to prevent a certain someone from committing something harmful … (… and ~10 more to prevent the other half by various others). P.S.: I mentioned the Provides change earlier which after carefully looking at it breaks now after 3 years into pieces and I wonder how it worked at all … (not that the code before that would be bug-free, I just "enhanced" it) Describing whats going on is a bit hard and frankly I haven't worked out myself in completion what the code does, just what it should do and while this overlaps at many points, in edgecases the code runs amok … This code is run for all dependencies effected by a remove, but a problem will only arise if you have an or-group somewhere behind that dependency which features virtual packages AND [pretty freaky ordering conditions – I will refer to it as "magic"]. In the "testcase" we happen to meet these conditions once: While removing openoffice.org-core we call this code for many openoffice.org-* packages one of those is "openoffice.org-officebean" which features such a magic or-group beginning with "default-jre | …". The "magic" will help us skipping over most of the or-group, but we will end-up with "java5-runtime" being mistakenly chosen for immediate promotion to a package needing immediate configuration (better: a provider as java5 is virtual). So we end up with stuff like 'openjdk6-jre' as "kinda pseudo essential". (I am positive that it "works" with other openoffice.org-* packages too, as long as they need the core package and java [in that order], which is true in the example for "openoffice.org-base", too – and it works with promoting others like gcj-jre, too. Which one is chosen exactly depends on magic, just like promotions in real life do [SCNR]). That these packages become "kinda pseudo essential" is a bug, but in most cases apt/squeeze can work with that. Sometimes it can't, which is a "known" bug [hopefully] fixed in apt/wheezy which I suspected as being at fault here as the usual symptoms apply (and disappear with apt/wheezy). I am working for a while now on fixing this code, which basically means a complete rewrite of the DepRemove method, but as usually the bug leads just to a non-optimal ordering, we could (and I tend to should) "happily" delay this until jessie and work around it as we usually do it with bugs in APT. P.P.S.: The "Conf Broken" error(s) can be ignored as they just happen in simulation. In the real run APT will tell dpkg to "do the right thing™" and it usually does (like configuring two packages "at the same time"). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org