#625771 libxml-libxml-perl: error during installation

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
#625771#5
Date:
2011-05-05 20:57:17 UTC
From:
To:
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.

#625771#10
Date:
2011-05-06 05:47:16 UTC
From:
To:
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,

#625771#15
Date:
2011-05-08 11:22:59 UTC
From:
To:
Each of the two appears only once in that file :)

So I guess you can close this then if you like.

Cheers,
Chris.

#625771#20
Date:
2011-05-08 11:48:27 UTC
From:
To:
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.