Your message dated Thu, 8 Apr 2021 19:22:49 +0200 with message-id <yg876tublvbzo...@thunder.hadrons.org> and subject line Re: Bug#985401: dpkg: libreoffice buster->bullseye upgrade failures has caused the Debian Bug report #985401, regarding dpkg: libreoffice buster->bullseye upgrade failures to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 985401: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=985401 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---Package: dpkg Version: 1.20.7.1 Severity: serious User: debian...@lists.debian.org Usertags: piuparts Control: block 985297 with -1 Preparing to unpack .../0-ure_1%3a7.0.4-3_amd64.deb ... Unpacking ure (1:7.0.4-3) over (6.1.5-3+deb10u7) ... Preparing to unpack .../1-libreoffice-style-colibre_1%3a7.0.4-3_all.deb ... Unpacking libreoffice-style-colibre (1:7.0.4-3) over (1:6.1.5-3+deb10u7) ... dpkg: considering deconfiguration of libreoffice-writer, which would be broken by installation of libreoffice-core ... dpkg: yes, will deconfigure libreoffice-writer (broken by libreoffice-core) Preparing to unpack .../2-libreoffice-core_1%3a7.0.4-3_amd64.deb ... De-configuring libreoffice-writer (1:6.1.5-3+deb10u7) ... Unpacking libreoffice-core (1:7.0.4-3) over (1:6.1.5-3+deb10u7) ... dpkg: considering removing libreoffice-writer in favour of libreoffice-common ... * dpkg: libreoffice-writer is not properly installed; ignoring any dependencies on it *** * dpkg: yes, will remove libreoffice-writer in favour of libreoffice-common *** Preparing to unpack .../3-libreoffice-common_1%3a7.0.4-3_all.deb ... dpkg-maintscript-helper: error: file '/usr/lib/libreoffice/share/registry/writer.xcd' not owned by package 'libreoffice-common:all' dpkg-maintscript-helper: error: directory '/usr/lib/libreoffice/share/registry' contains files not owned by package libreoffice-common:all, cannot switch to symlink dpkg: error processing archive /tmp/apt-dpkg-install-sERX6l/3-libreoffice-common_1%3a7.0.4-3_all.deb (--unpack): new libreoffice-common package pre-installation script subprocess returned error exit status 1 rmdir: failed to remove '/var/lib/libreoffice/program/': No such file or directory rmdir: failed to remove '/var/lib/libreoffice': No such file or directory Selecting previously unselected package libreoffice-writer. dpkg: considering deconfiguration of libreoffice-common, which would be broken by installation of libreoffice-writer ... dpkg: yes, will deconfigure libreoffice-common (broken by libreoffice-writer) Preparing to unpack .../4-libreoffice-writer_1%3a7.0.4-3_amd64.deb ... De-configuring libreoffice-common (1:6.1.5-3+deb10u7) ... Unpacking libreoffice-writer (1:7.0.4-3) over (1:6.1.5-3+deb10u7) ... Replacing files in old package libreoffice-common (1:6.1.5-3+deb10u7) ... Preparing to unpack .../5-libxmlsec1_1.2.31-1_amd64.deb ... Unpacking libxmlsec1:amd64 (1.2.31-1) over (1.2.27-2) ... Preparing to unpack .../6-libreoffice-base-core_1%3a7.0.4-3_amd64.deb ... Unpacking libreoffice-base-core (1:7.0.4-3) over (1:6.1.5-3+deb10u7) ... Errors were encountered while processing: /tmp/apt-dpkg-install-sERX6l/3-libreoffice-common_1%3a7.0.4-3_all.deb So is dpkg going to remove libreoffice-writer or not? It says both and does not remove it, causing dpkg-maintscript-helper to fail since /usr/lib/libreoffice/share/registry is not empty before dir_to_symlink is run. There should be enough Conflicts to ensure all packages previously shipping files there are removed or upgraded. Andreas
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Hi! On Fri, 2021-03-19 at 14:28:22 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Thu, 2021-03-18 at 18:25:17 +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: > > Then I didn't actually do it and "just" added the Conflicts: > > > > (The symlink is only needed because of LO not honouring their own > > configuration so otherwise the config is not found - see #972043 and > > #969653) > > Ok, then if this is needed, see above. > > Otherwise, I don't see a bug in dpkg for this here. And I'd be > inclined to close this. Doing this now then. Thanks, Guillem
--- End Message ---
