[Pkg-openldap-devel] Bug#487211: Bug#487211: Bug#487211: slapd: upgrade from 2.3.35 fails looking for ldif

[Steve Langasek]

severity 495954 normal
tags 487211 -moreinfo
thanks

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 10:56:16PM +0200, Giuseppe Sacco wrote:
> Il giorno dom, 31/08/2008 alle 11.08 -0700, Steve Langasek ha scritto:
> > On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 04:09:19PM +0200, Giuseppe Sacco wrote:
> [...]
> > > I found the very same bug today on updating a machine from etch to
> > > lenny. The upgrade procedure didn't worked correctly, so aptitude
> > > stopped and I had to use "apt-get -f install" and "dpkg --configure
> > > --pending" a few times.
> > 
> > Ok, can *you* show us the log output from the initial upgrade, which is the
> > information I'm missing to try to understand what happened here?

> Unfortunately I didn't keep any information about the initial problem.

Hmm, /var/log/apt/term.log, by any chance?

> > > Currently I am stuck at this point: old slapd has been removed, ldif was
> > > not created, I cannot reinstall the old slapd since I cannot downgrade
> > > libldap to libldap-2.3-0. The new version won't find any ldif and will
> > > not correctly get configured.

> > > I cannot downgrade libldap since removing the new version will remove a
> > > lot of packages I need:

> > > sgi:~# LC_ALL=C apt-get remove libldap-2.4-2

> > Why did you not simply run "apt-get install libldap-2.3-0"?  These are
> > different library SONAMEs, the packages don't conflict.

> libldap-2.3-0 depends on libldap2 that conflict with libldap-2.4-2.

Ok, thanks for pointing this out.  This is a change that was introduced in
an NMU that I had intended to revert because it's not the standard way of
handling SONAME changes in Debian, even when one of the libraries involved
does not use symbol versioning and symbol conflicts result.  I never got
around to reverting it because it seemed to be a lower priority issue in
practice; this, together with bug #495954, makes it clear that it needs to
be a high priority.

I'm not sure that bug #495954 is entirely the fault of this conflict; I
think there's still an issue with how apt or aptitude is ordering packages
during upgrade which is detectably wrong and should be addressed.  But that
bug can probably be downgraded as long as this one gets fixed.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek at ubuntu.com                                     vorlon at debian.org