Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Frank Küster wrote: > >> Please be so kind and keep the bug number address in the Cc >> >> Tuomo Valkonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 03:24:59PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: >> >> Is any tetex package installed on the system, and can you give the >> >> version numbers currently installed and, ideally, of the old ones before >> >> the upgrade? We had a bug with /usr/local/ in tetex-base, and this might >> >> be connected. >> > >> > Tetex is installed, tetex-base being currently version 2.0.2c-6. I don't >> > know the previous version, but I think I last upgraded sometime around >> > mid-january. >> >> Could it have been after January 24st? This is the date when we released >> a version (2.0.2c-4) that erroneously shipped /usr/local/share/texmf in >> the deb. This caused a symlink to be converted to a real file for one >> user when he upgraded from the buggy version to the fixed version, >> 2.0.2c-5 (that did no longer contain that directory). > > Er, don't think so. > > dpkg doesn't convert symlinks to dirs.
No, that not, for sure. But a user has reported a problem to the debian-tetex-bin mailinglist that seemed to have the following cause: 1 when the buggy version that contained /usr/local/share/texmf was installed, dpkg followed the symlink and created the directory in the target dir of the symlink 2 when the corrected version was installed, dpkg first removed the directory /usr/local/share/texmf, found that /usr/local/share/ was empty and not owned by anyone, removed it, and found the same for /usr/local. Therefore it removed it, not caring for its symlinkicity. 3 After this, the corrected version tried whether it could create /usr/local/share/texmf in its postinst. But there was an other small bug, I used "mkdir -p" for that, and that made /usr/local reappear as an ordinary directory. I don't know whether 2 is really true, but this is how we concluded that things must have happened. However, I don't think that in this case it is tetex-base's fault: First, Tuomo said that the previous upgrade was most probably before January 24, and second there would have been a /usr/local/share/texmf on his system, which wasn't. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
