Hi Chris, On 15/08/11 23:16, Chris Knadle wrote: > Package: mercurial > Version: 1.9.1-2 > > As I don't use Mercurial much (I mostly use Git) I decided to test the upgrade > due to this bug, and was unable to reproduce it. In my case no byte-compiled > files were removed.
You are upgrading from 1.9.1-1, which already shipped all the files in /usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/mercurial , so no files needed to be removed from /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages . > The relevant output (from aptitude): > > Preparing to replace mercurial 1.9.1-1 (using .../mercurial_1.9.1-2_i386.deb) > ... > Unpacking replacement mercurial ... > Preparing to replace mercurial-common 1.9.1-1 (using > .../mercurial-common_1.9.1-2_all.deb) ... > Unpacking replacement mercurial-common ... > ... > Setting up mercurial-common (1.9.1-2) ... > Setting up mercurial (1.9.1-2) ... > > > And 'hg' also seems to operate correctly as far as I can tell. > Now the qustion is what cause byte-compiled files to be removed in the > original instance the bug is based on. The byte-compiled files are removed from /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages as part of the upgrade if you have anything left there from old installations. Then, those directories are removed because they are not needed any more, as the mercurial package follows the new convention of installing in dist-packages. > BTW in case this may help, I'm including the output of the following command: > > $ ls -ld /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages > ls: cannot access /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages: No such file or directory As expected. The question is what is installed there in the system of Simon (the original reporter). Thanks for testing the upgrade, Javi (Vicho)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
