Bug#388450: loaders/immodules not updated on upgrade

[Loïc Minier]

        Hi,

On Wed, Sep 20, 2006, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> Feeling dangerous today, I gave some new experimental gnome packages a
> try. I know they are not for general use, yet, but the problem I've
> discovered is easy to fix and perhaps got overlooked. So I decided to
> report it.

 There are actually, starting with the version above, for general
 testing.

> After upgrading libgtk2.0-0, all PNG-using applications stopped showing
> the images - file chooser icons, new windows' icons, gqview, etc. Error
> message is (translated from Bulgarian):
> 
> (gqview:27100): Gtk-WARNING **: Error loading theme icon for stock:
> Image loading module -
> /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.4.0/loaders/libpixbufloader-png.so can't be loaded:
> /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.4.0/loaders/libpixbufloader-png.so: cannot open
> shared object file: No such file or directory

 This is puzzling.  libpixbufloader-png.so is shipped by libgtk2.0-0
 itself, and it works fine here.  Beside, I don't see where the "2.4.0"
 version comes from if you upgraded to libgtk2.0-0.

 Gtk 2.10 uses a new module ABI, version 2.10.0.  For a dynamically
 linked application, such as gqview which Depends on libgtk2.0-0,
 starting the application should load the new library which should find
 its own modules...

 Or perhaps did you mean that the application was running while you
 upgraded Gtk?

> Manually running /usr/lib/libgtk2.0-0/update-gdkpixbuf-loaders made them
> all work again.

 This is surprizing.  Your applications should be working with the new
 Gtk without this.  Actually, the new Gtk does not require any file in
 /etc at all.

> I think postinst of 2.10 is missing the following lines, currently
> present in 2.8.20-1's postinst:
>         /usr/lib/libgtk2.0-0/update-gtk-immodules
>         /usr/lib/libgtk2.0-0/update-gdkpixbuf-loaders

 This was removed on purpose.


 The only explanation for your problem I see is that you started an
 application with the old Gtk, upgraded Gtk, and did stuff with the
 application started before the upgrade which required loading a module.
 Is this correct?

 I think such a scenario is relatively hard to support, but I welcome
 ideas to support it.  One way I see to support it is to refuse upgrades
 when some blacklisted applications are running.

   Bye,
-- 
Loïc Minier <lool at dooz.org>