[Bug 16229] New gconf2 packages lack /usr/lib/GConf/2/
bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla.ubuntu.com
bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla.ubuntu.com
Sat Sep 24 14:31:35 UTC 2005
Please do not reply to this email. You can add comments at
http://bugzilla.ubuntu.com/show_bug.cgi?id=16229
Ubuntu | gconf2
------- Additional Comments From debzilla at ubuntu.com 2005-09-24 15:31 UTC -------
Message-Id: <1127565062.4830.33.camel at fault.errorlan>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 14:31:02 +0200
From: Remco Schaar <remco at ch.its.tudelft.nl>
To: submit at bugs.debian.org
Subject: New gconf2 packages lack /usr/lib/GConf/2/
--=-Nx0FeQ9XHZtkFHSnT4oe
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Package: gconf2
Version: 2.10.1-5
Hello,
I think the new packaging of gconf2 is lacking the libraries
in /usr/lib/GConf/2. This is introduced somewhere between 2.10.1-2 and
2.10.1-5. This caused some problems on my system while upgrading
libgsf-gnome-1:
No such file `/usr/lib/GConf/2/libgconfbackend-xml.so'
Failed to load source "xml::/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.defaults": Failed: Cou=
ldn't locate backend module for `xml::/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.defaults'
GConf-ERROR **: file gconftool.c: line 828 (main): assertion failed: (e=
rr =3D=3D NULL)
aborting...
/var/lib/dpkg/info/libgsf-gnome-1.postinst: line 7: 10614 Aborted =
HOME=3D/root GCONF_CONFIG_SOURCE=3D`gconftool-2 --get-default-so=
urce` gconftool-2 --makefile-install-rule $SCHEMA_LOCATION/$SCHEMA >/dev/nu=
ll
dpkg: error processing libgsf-gnome-1 (--configure):
subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 134
This caused libgsf-gnome-1 to fail installing, which rendered a lot of
gnome applications unusable, since they could not load their
configuration from gconf. Looking at the package contents, gconf2
version 2.10.1-2 contains
/usr/lib/GConf/2/libgconfbackend-xml.so
which are nowhere in any of the gconf2 packages of 2.10.1-5. However,
libgconf2-4 version 2.10.1-5 contains=20
/usr/lib/libgconf2-4/2/libgconfbackend-xml.so
I created a symlink
/usr/lib/GConf/2 -> /usr/lib/libgconf2-4/2/
which allowed me to upgrade libgsf-gnome-1.
Perhaps this symlink should be in one of the gconf2 packages?
After upgrading libgsf-gnome-1, that package can be reinstalled again
without the symlink present, so this problem may be already be resolved.
Perhaps it can still create problems while upgrading though (i.e. etch
-> sid at the moment)?
If non of the above is still considered a problem, this report might be
helpful for anyone with a similar upgrade-problem.
For the record, I was upgrading libgsf-gnome-1 as follows:
2005-09-15 22:20:22 upgrade libgsf-1 1.12.2-1 1.12.3-3
according my dpkg.log.
HTH,
Remco Schaar
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (1,
'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.12-1-k7
Locale: LANG=3Den_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=3Den_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=3DUTF-8)
Versions of packages gconf2 depends on:
ii gconf2-common 2.10.1-5 GNOME configuration database s=
yste
ii libc6 2.3.5-6 GNU C Library: Shared librarie=
s an
ii libgconf2-4 2.10.1-5 GNOME configuration database s=
yste
ii libglib2.0-0 2.8.0-1 The GLib library of C routines
ii liborbit2 1:2.12.2-3 libraries for ORBit2 - a CORBA=
ORB
ii libpopt0 1.7-5 lib for parsing cmdline parame=
ters
ii libxml2 2.6.22-1 GNOME XML library
ii zlib1g 1:1.2.3-4 compression library - runtime
Versions of packages gconf2 recommends:
ii libgtk2.0-0 2.6.10-1 The GTK+ graphical user
interface
-- no debconf information
--=-Nx0FeQ9XHZtkFHSnT4oe
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBDNUcG2FA1Xq+Vwx8RAjrbAJ90MsMs77h1UYu4jTbGEqPHl18krwCfZP/6
iTfCvdbIiW3X+sCtF89NqJs=
=GKKK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-Nx0FeQ9XHZtkFHSnT4oe--
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.ubuntu.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
More information about the desktop-bugs
mailing list