On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 11:32:51PM +1100, Brendan O'Dea wrote: > On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 03:11:34AM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > >This mail should give an overview for a problem with woody->sarge upgrades > >reported multiple times. > > >On woody->sarge upgrades, sometimes maintainer scripts fail with the > >following error: > >Can't locate File/Basename.pm in @INC (@INC contains: > >/usr/local/lib/perl/5.6.1 /usr/local/share/perl/5.6.1 /usr/lib/perl5 > >/usr/share/perl5 /usr/lib/perl/5.6.1 /usr/share/perl/5.6.1 > >/usr/local/lib/site_perl .) at /usr/sbin/install-docs line 17. > >BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at /usr/sbin/install-docs line 17. [...] > > Given that possibility, the solution for the future is to modify > install-docs to use only essential packages. Providing replacement code > for File::Basename (install-docs appears to use basename and dirname) is > pretty trivial.
Indeed. > For this upgrade, the only dependency changes which will actually > correct the problem are adding "Depends: perl" to any packages which > use install-docs in the postinst... probably not a reasonable solution. Probably not ;) > Release notes instructing users with doc-base installed to "apt-get > install doc-base" prior to "apt-get dist-upgrade" may be a possibility. As I said, I only was able to reproduce the failure while making the upgrade through aptitude interactively, neither with apt-get dist-upgrade nor aptitude dist-upgrade. Not that would be a safe assumption but is seems to limit the effect. So mentioning it in the release notes might be enough. Kinda sad, though. One possibility might be a conflict of perl against doc-base (<< version without File::Basename) to enforce the prior upgrade of doc-base but conflicts tend to cause more problems than they solve in such cases ... Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www: http://www.djpig.de/
