Matthias Klose wrote:
Sven Joachim writes:
Package: gcc-4.0-base
Version: 4.0.2-10
Severity: serious
It looks as if bug #346171 has raised its ugly head again, since somehow the
files /usr/share/doc/gcc-4.0-base{copyright, changelog.Debian.gz} disappeared
after the upgrade from 4.0.2-9 to 4.0.2-10:
oops, found it, still a libstdc++6-4.0-dev.preinst
No, there is nothing wrong with this preinst. It looks as follows:
,----
| #! /bin/sh -e
|
| case "$1" in
| upgrade)
| # upgrading from older experimental gcc-4.0 package
| if [ -d /usr/include/c++/4.0 ] && [ ! -h /usr/include/c++/4.0 ]; then
| mv /usr/include/c++/4.0 /usr/include/c++/4.0.0
| ln -s 4.0.0 /usr/include/c++/4.0
| fi
| esac
|
`----
This does nothing in /usr/share/doc. Actually, there is nothing wrong with
any maintainer script in version 4.0.2-10. The problem was that the scripts
in the _previous_ version were bad. Explanation:
After some investigation I found out the reason for the lost changelog and
copyright files. The problem lies actually in the previous (4.0.2-9) versions
of lib64gcc1 and libgcc1. These packages contain the files
/usr/share/doc/lib{,64}gcc1/{changelog.Debian.gz,copyright}. But the preinst
scripts inadvertedly changed the directories to symlinks when upgrading from
an older version:
,----
| #! /bin/sh -e
|
| case "$1" in
| upgrade)
| docdir=/usr/share/doc/libgcc1
| if [ -d $docdir ] && [ ! -h $docdir ]; then
| rm -rf $docdir
| ln -s gcc-4.0-base $docdir
| fi
| esac
|
`----
is the libgcc1 preinst, for instance. So /usr/share/doc/libgcc1 became a
symlink to /usr/share/doc/gcc-base-4.0, but /var/lib/dpkg/info/libgcc1.list
still contains the lines
/usr/share/doc/libgcc1/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libgcc1/changelog.Debian.gz
, with /usr/share/doc/libgcc1 being the same place as
/usr/share/doc/gcc-4.0-base. You see the problem? Upgrading to libgcc1
4.0.2-10, dpkg will remove these two files, since they are not in the new
package. Thus, if the libgcc1 package is unpacked _after_ gcc-4.0-base, the
copyright and Debian changelog are lost, and exactly that happened to me as I
could tell from dpkg's log, an excerpt containing only the affected packages
follows:
2006-03-05 16:27:06 upgrade lib64gcc1 1:4.0.2-9 1:4.0.2-10
2006-03-05 16:27:06 status half-configured lib64gcc1 1:4.0.2-9
2006-03-05 16:27:06 status unpacked lib64gcc1 1:4.0.2-9
2006-03-05 16:27:06 status half-installed lib64gcc1 1:4.0.2-9
2006-03-05 16:27:06 status half-installed lib64gcc1 1:4.0.2-9
2006-03-05 16:27:06 status unpacked lib64gcc1 1:4.0.2-10
2006-03-05 16:27:06 status unpacked lib64gcc1 1:4.0.2-10
2006-03-05 16:27:16 upgrade gcc-4.0-base 4.0.2-9 4.0.2-10
2006-03-05 16:27:16 status half-configured gcc-4.0-base 4.0.2-9
2006-03-05 16:27:16 status unpacked gcc-4.0-base 4.0.2-9
2006-03-05 16:27:16 status half-installed gcc-4.0-base 4.0.2-9
2006-03-05 16:27:16 status half-installed gcc-4.0-base 4.0.2-9
2006-03-05 16:27:16 status unpacked gcc-4.0-base 4.0.2-10
2006-03-05 16:27:16 status unpacked gcc-4.0-base 4.0.2-10
2006-03-05 16:27:16 upgrade libgcc1 1:4.0.2-9 1:4.0.2-10
2006-03-05 16:27:16 status half-configured libgcc1 1:4.0.2-9
2006-03-05 16:27:16 status unpacked libgcc1 1:4.0.2-9
2006-03-05 16:27:16 status half-installed libgcc1 1:4.0.2-9
2006-03-05 16:27:16 status half-installed libgcc1 1:4.0.2-9
2006-03-05 16:27:16 status unpacked libgcc1 1:4.0.2-10
2006-03-05 16:27:16 status unpacked libgcc1 1:4.0.2-10
2006-03-05 16:27:17 status unpacked gcc-4.0-base 4.0.2-10
2006-03-05 16:27:17 status half-configured gcc-4.0-base 4.0.2-10
2006-03-05 16:27:17 status installed gcc-4.0-base 4.0.2-10
2006-03-05 16:27:17 status unpacked libgcc1 1:4.0.2-10
2006-03-05 16:27:17 status half-configured libgcc1 1:4.0.2-10
2006-03-05 16:27:24 status installed libgcc1 1:4.0.2-10
2006-03-05 16:27:35 status unpacked lib64gcc1 1:4.0.2-10
2006-03-05 16:27:35 status half-configured lib64gcc1 1:4.0.2-10
2006-03-05 16:27:35 status installed lib64gcc1 1:4.0.2-10
So the explanation is found. How to get out of this mess and ensure proper
upgrading of the gcc-4.0 packages is another matter, which is left as an
exercise for you. ;-)
Arguably, it might be a bug in dpkg that it even installed the 4.0.2-9
versions of the packages, since /usr/share/doc/libgcc1/copyright and
/usr/share/doc/gcc-4.0-base/copyright were the same file in these versions and
dpkg should have detected that during unpacking. I will check the long list
of dpkg bugs to see whether such an issue has already been reported.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
