- Package:
- libxml-libxml-perl
- Source:
- libxml-libxml-perl
- Description:
- Perl interface to the libxml2 library
- Submitter:
- Christoph Anton Mitterer
- Date:
- 2014-08-18 21:15:15 UTC
- Severity:
- normal
Hi. The following happens during installation: Preparing to replace libxml-libxml-perl 1.70.ds-1 (using .../libxml-libxml-perl_1.70.ds-1+b1_i386.deb) ... Can't locate File/Basename.pm in @INC (@INC contains: /etc/perl /usr/local/lib/perl/5.10.1 /usr/local/share/perl/5.10.1 /usr/lib/perl5 /usr/share/perl5 /usr/lib/perl/5.10 /usr/share/perl/5.10 /usr/local/lib/site_perl .) at /usr/share/perl5/XML/SAX.pm line 15. BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at /usr/share/perl5/XML/SAX.pm line 15. Compilation failed in require at /usr/bin/update-perl-sax-parsers line 18. BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at /usr/bin/update-perl-sax-parsers line 18. dpkg: warning: subprocess old pre-removal script returned error exit status 2 dpkg - trying script from the new package instead ... dpkg: ... it looks like that went OK. Unpacking replacement libxml-libxml-perl ... Is this "normal"? Cheers, Chris.
This is because the prerm script gets executed at a point when perl-base is still at 5.10 but perl and perl-modules have already been upgraded to 5.12. It's trying to unregister XML::LibXML from the XML::SAX parsers database and failing that. The "new" prerm script succeeds because it doesn't retry the unregistration when given a 'failed-upgrade' argument. It's ugly, but I don't think it actually breaks anything. Could you please check whether XML::LibXML::SAX and XML::LibXML::SAX::Parser are now mentioned twice in your /etc/perl/XML/SAX/ParserDetails.ini or only once? (The latter is the correct behaviour.) Not sure what can be done about this. Possibly the update-perl-sax-parsers calls should be moved to the postrm. Even so, making sure the fix will apply to squeeze->wheezy upgrades may need a Conflicts/Breaks in perl-base or something like that. Thanks for the report,
Each of the two appears only once in that file :) So I guess you can close this then if you like. Cheers, Chris.
Great, thanks. No, it's a real bug and shouldn't be closed. Possibly severity 'minor', but I'm not quite sure if there's a corner case that actually breaks something so leaving it as is for now.