It looks like the problem is this: initially, apt clears the Marked
flag from all packages. When aptitude tells apt, on startup, to upgrade
a particular package, apt notices that the package isn't marked and
figures it must be unused, so it sets the package back to manual mode.
Arguably apt
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 04:08:37PM +1000, Trent Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
I get the following error often (but not consistently) in aptitude
when using the `l' binding to limit list to a pattern. I think it
happens after I type ~d, but it might be after typing any letter. I
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 07:16:43AM -0700, Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 09:44:52PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
*** ERROR: search aborted by fatal exception. You may continue
searching, but some
Could you verify that this patch fixes the problem?
Thanks,
Daniel
diff -r af9017db699d src/generic/apt/aptcache.cc
--- a/src/generic/apt/aptcache.cc Sun Jul 08 11:35:00 2007 -0700
+++ b/src/generic/apt/aptcache.cc Sun Jul 08 12:44:44 2007 -0700
@@ -758,6 +758,15 @@ void
On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 02:16:12PM +0800, manphiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard
to say:
Daniel Burrows wrote:
I've rebuilt aptitude without being stripped and got 2 backtraces when
'g' is finished, one is the bad one with lib6-i686 and the other is
the good one without it. I've attached them
Hm, I can't reproduce this with your state files, so whatever is
happening is probably not a case of a weird global state causing
aptitude to crash.
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 11:21:50PM -0400, Bryan Donlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
I think I've figured out how to reproduce this:
* Open aptitude. Do any package install/upgrade/remove operation.
* When the operation completes, and aptitude says press return to
continue, open another
On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 08:11:04PM +0200, Artur R. Czechowski [EMAIL
PROTECTED] was heard to say:
I noticed that all packages with newer version available have cleared
automatically installed flag. Even setting this flag manually, exiting
aptitude and running it again does not help.
Could
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 10:09:49PM +0200, Michal Čihař [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
I just happen to see this when I forgot that I already run package
installtion on another console. The first aptitude is wating in Press
return to continue. and when I execute second one, I get segfault.
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 01:32:49PM +1200, Mark Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# aptitude
aptitude: error while loading shared libraries:
libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.3.11: cannot open shared object file: No such file
or directory
What version of apt do you
On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 11:00:16PM +0200, Artur R. Czechowski [EMAIL
PROTECTED] was heard to say:
On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 11:00:46AM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
Then I run aptitude. The libxcursor1 is marked to upgrade from 1.1.7-4
to 1:1.1.8-2, but without A status in 3rd column. Additionaly
On Sat, Jul 07, 2007 at 03:08:58PM +0800, Manphiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard
to say:
I'm using testing, and the problem is 100% reproducable here as well.
Fortunately, with some experiments, it seems the culprit, as least in my
case, has been found - libc6-i686, whose removal finally makes
Well, that eliminates the processor variable. I don't think it's the
testing libc6-i686 either -- I've tried this on some testing machines
and they work just fine, and nothing in the changelog suggests that it
would impact this bug.
It looks to me like the problem is that the input thread
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 09:20:23PM -0700, Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
I updated the package lists, and then started marking packages to upgrade with
'+'. I marked several openoffice.org-related packages to upgrade, which made
aptitude highlight the rest as broken because
On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 09:39:20AM +1200, Ian McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
When I do sudo aptitude -PV upgrade and it cannot get all the files I
get this:
W: Could not lock the cache file. Opening in read-only mode; any
changes you make to the states of packages will NOT be
Package: hg-buildpackage
Version: 1.0.2
Severity: minor
The manpage says that DBP_BUILDER lets you choose a program other
than debuilder to kick off the build, but the source says HBP_BUILDER.
Daniel
-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500,
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 10:00:53PM -0700, Nathaniel Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 06:12:11PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
Does installing the version in experimental fix the problem for you?
Yes, the aptitude in experimental (0.4.4-5~2, which appears
Please install the version of aptitude from experimental. It should
fix your problem.
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let's eliminate a variable.
If you change your language to C, do you still get this crash?
Run LANG=C LC_ALL=C aptitude to check.
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 10:58:18PM -0300, Renato S. Yamane [EMAIL
PROTECTED] was heard to say:
And I install (with dpkg) OpenOffice.Org 2.2.1 (converting RPMs to .deb with
alien) from www.openoffice.org.
Which package names did you install? Could you send the output of
dpkg -s on each of
Could you please install the version in experimental and see if it
has the same problems?
Thanks,
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 11:29:20AM +0200, Jens Kubieziel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
steps to reproduce:
1. open aptitude
2. select a package to install/upgrade/remove
3. type 'g'
4. after finished the action I can push any button, but aptitude doesn't react
to the keypress.
Does installing the version in experimental fix the problem for you?
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 08:11:11PM -0500, Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
Initializing package states takes an absolutely outrageous amount of time
on a 0.5GHz Athlon with 256M RAM. Previous versions of aptitude did not do
this, so IMO, this is a regression that needs to be
Does the version in experimental reproduce the problem?
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 09:45:16PM -0300, Renato S. Yamane [EMAIL
PROTECTED] was heard to say:
Daniel Burrows escreveu:
Which package names did you install? Could you send the output of
dpkg -s on each of the new debs?
Daniel, aptitude try remove this packges that I install using dpkg
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 06:43:25PM +0400, Paul Romanchenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
It seems bug was fixed. But new [unwanted?] behaviour: on second search,
previous pattern is cleared when one enters any character.
This would be bug #405963?
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 07:39:23PM +0400, Paul Romanchenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
Here we go! gdb stacktrace follows.
Aptitude was built from sources fetched by 'apt-get source aptitude'.
aptitude_0.4.5.3-1.diff.gz, aptitude_0.4.5.3-1.dsc,
aptitude_0.4.5.3.orig.tar.gz
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 07:59:20PM +0200, Brice Goglin [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
About 3 years ago, you reported a bug to the Debian BTS regarding some
artifacts and the screen flickering when using a Radeon IGP board with
an external CRT monitor. Did you reproduce this problem
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:13:54PM +0200, Thomas Arendsen Hein [EMAIL
PROTECTED] was heard to say:
* Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] [20070620 15:43]:
It would be very handy if I could ask mercurial to print the summaries
of changesets as it transfers them in a pull, push, or fetch
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 12:28:32AM -0400, Bryan Donlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Aptitude in experimental crashes on startup. Backtrace:
Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault.
#0 0x081f0867 in aptitudeDepCache::cleanup_after_change (this=0x8324a38,
undo=0x0,
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 04:52:19PM +0400, Paul Romanchenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
aptitude crashed on following sequence:
1. start aptitude
2. press /
3. enter abc
4. press enter
5. press /
6. enter a
Hm, could you possibly build the program with debugging symbols and
get a
Package: mercurial
Version: 0.9.3-2
Severity: wishlist
It would be very handy if I could ask mercurial to print the summaries
of changesets as it transfers them in a pull, push, or fetch command.
e.g., hg pull -v (for verbose).
Daniel
-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
APT
Can you reproduce this with the version of aptitude in experimental?
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 12:52:21PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
It still shows no new packages, and pkgstates is never created, no
matter how many times I run aptitude or what I do.
Does it show up as soon as you install (/ upgrade / remove / select
and undo
Can you reproduce this in 0.4.5.3? It goes away for me in that
version.
I'd feel a lot better if I'd actually done anything to fix it, but
I think maybe it can be closed for now.
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 11:24:57AM +0200, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It sounds like you're saying I shouldn't display the state of the
program before resolving dependencies? Wouldn't that be horribly
confusing if some
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 01:09:44PM +0200, Vincent Fourmond [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
As written on debian-devel (under another address), the most recent
version of aptitude in experimental fails to build from source. There are
two aspects of this:
* a simple broken sprintf
Package: apt
Version: 0.7.2
Severity: important
While trying some test builds with g++-4.3, I discovered that apt's
headers cause user code to fail.
I don't know that this is a complete list, but here are the ones I ran
into.
* depcache.h needs to include memory for auto_ptr.
*
Ooh, that's a nasty one. To make it more fun, it occurs in the
previous releases of aptitude as well.
I think I have a pretty good idea what's going on.
(1) You install wesnoth with apt-get. So far so good.
(2) You remove wesnoth with aptitude, *from the command-line*.
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.14.4
Severity: normal
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/apt--debian-sid$ dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot
dpkg-buildpackage: source package is apt
dpkg-buildpackage: source version is 0.7.2
dpkg-buildpackage: source changed by Michael Vogt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dpkg-buildpackage: host
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.14.4
Severity: wishlist
It would be nice if dpkg's status cache had a little more information;
say, enough so that other programs could recognize whether a package's
state had been changed.
The use case I'm interested in is aptitude. aptitude keeps various
pieces of
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 09:59:25PM -0400, Felipe Sateler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
On Sunday 17 June 2007 20:22:20 Daniel Burrows wrote:
The problem can be fixed by reading/writing the installation
states again after step 2, at the cost of making installs take
longer. Other
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 08:42:43AM -0700, Matt Kraai [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
This problem sounds similar to that described in the second email in
428616. Unfortunately, there's not enough information there to know
how to fix the problem.
Daniel, could the problem that slows down
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:50:35PM +0200, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So the only bug I see here is that it's too hard to get a sensible
explanation of where autoinstalls (the ones done internally by libapt)
come from.
One
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 05:26:41PM -0700, Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
So, I need to find a way to do wget_wch() in my main thread, while
still unblocking when a background thread posts a message to my global
queue. I guess this means I have to make some sort of dummy
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 10:30:24AM -0700, Matt Kraai [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
diff -ru update-manager-0.42.2ubuntu22/UpdateManager/UpdateManager.py
update-manager-0.42.2ubuntu22.new/UpdateManager/UpdateManager.py
--- update-manager-0.42.2ubuntu22/UpdateManager/UpdateManager.py
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 10:59:51AM -0700, Matt Kraai [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 10:43:58AM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
I think you need try/finally here?
Ah, good point. Does the attached patch look good?
Yes, that looks great.
Daniel
I've finally gotten a chance to look into this again, and I may have
a meaningful clue as to what's happening.
I ran an strace, and although I can't reproduce the race on this
single-CPU laptop, I *did* catch a background thread writing to stdout!
It's the input thread, which does nothing but
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 11:23:59AM -0700, Dustin Sallings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
On Jun 14, 2007, at 6:50 , Daniel Burrows wrote:
That would be both of us then? But I think Dustin's patch is more
complete; I just fixed what I needed to get my case to work, but he
added
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:58:14PM +0200, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aha. If you look at the aptitude output earlier in your mail, it looks
like lsb-core is required by lsb. lsb is recommended by lsb-release, and
lsb-release
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 01:19:05PM -0700, Dustin Sallings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
On Jun 13, 2007, at 12:47 , Lele Gaifax wrote:
Yeah, I guessed right :) As said, it would really boost the fix if
either of you could hint me about the better solution of the two. I'm
(still)
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 03:25:34PM +0200, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Hi, now that I've closed an aptitude non-bug today, may I submit a new
one?
Sure, but only if it's a non-bug. :-)
Today, when I call aptitude dist-upgrade on sid, aptitude seems to
install new
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 05:25:10PM +0200, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you get here if you pass -D at the command line? I bet you
get just the same thing back...
Yes, with lots of Ds and Ss and Rs:
[snip
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 12:16:34AM +0100, Timothy Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
Needs rebuilding with the latest apt.
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as a rebuild. I have packages -- a
new upstream, no less -- built against the new apt, but they have nasty
interactions with
Sallings
Dustin [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Only perform the underlying move for
Dustin disjunct trees
Daniel Mon Jun 11 07:44:54 PDT 2007 Daniel Burrows
Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Fix renaming files in
Daniel Mercurial. mercurial's copy command on repositories
Daniel requires
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 09:57:19PM -0700, Dustin Sallings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
On Jun 11, 2007, at 20:54, Daniel Burrows wrote:
I don't know if there's a better solution (e.g., something as simple
as using shellutils). Another reply on this bug suggested that tailor
should
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 07:43:26AM +0200, Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 07:15:26PM -0700, Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Package: epiphany-browser
Version: 2.14.3-6
Severity: normal
If I have a home directory that's shared between
as simple
as using shellutils). Another reply on this bug suggested that tailor
should be rewritten to use a different API. That may be, but OTOH this
would be a reasonable temporary fix if it doesn't break anything else.
Daniel
Mon Jun 11 07:44:54 PDT 2007 Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED
Package: mp3gain
Version: 1.4.6-3
Severity: normal
If mp3gain doesn't have standard input (for instance, because it was
run as find . -name *.mp3 | xargs mp3gain -r) and it needs to prompt,
it does this:
Make change? [y/n]:Make change? [y/n]:Make change? (...repeat ad nauseum...)
Usually
reopen 253381
thanks
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 01:51:06AM +, Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL
PROTECTED] was heard to say:
This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
#253381: The description for the medical pod mission could be clearer,
which was filed against the
reopen 253380
thanks
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 02:00:07AM +, Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL
PROTECTED] was heard to say:
This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
#253380: Inconsistent buy/sell prices for upgrades,
which was filed against the starfighter package.
It
Package: tailor
Version: 0.9.28-1
Severity: normal
Say I have a darcs repository called head and I use the following
configuration, which is approximately what the tailor README suggests:
=== CUT HERE
[DEFAULT]
verbose = True
[project]
target = darcs:target
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 10:57:03PM +0200, Lele Gaifax [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Daniel Burrows writes:
Daniel [darcs:target] repository = /tmp/tailor/foo
Daniel [darcs:source] repository = /tmp/tailor/head
Daniel, to move changeset across the same kind of VC you need
Package: epiphany-browser
Version: 2.14.3-6
Severity: normal
If I have a home directory that's shared between two computers, and I
start epiphany on both of them, the second one that's started will offer
to recover the tabs from the first one.
The solution to this could be as simple as
Package: tailor
Version: 0.9.28-1
Severity: normal
I'm trying to convert a darcs repository to mercurial, using tailor to
preserve history.
After a long run, tailor produced a repository whose working directory
was identical to my starting repository. Great! ... or so I thought.
So, I
Sorry, my bad: it's not reading darcs repositories that confuses tailor,
it's writing Mercurial repositories. (converting the same darcs repository
to svn works fine, but converting an svn repository containing renames to
Mercurial results in the same breakage) This may or may not be related
OK, the problem seems to be this bit of the output:
21:12:33 [I] Renaming 'A' to 'B'...
B does not exist!
21:12:33 [I] Committing u'[foo @ 3]'...
That message about B does not exist! is generated by the Mercurial
module and appears to mean something like I'm going to fail to do what
you
Here's what I got with your message:
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 04:39:05PM -0400, Paul Check [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Hey Mike: Sry to bother you..but what mailing list is this? I'd like to
get off, but there are no unsubscribe directions in the message. I presume
this is a list for
Hi,
I'm sorry about never getting back to you on this, it must have fallen
through the cracks (probably because I would have been taking finals and
getting ready to go offline for the summer right about then). Have you
seen this since you reported it? If you by any chance can still
Have you seen anything resembling what you describe in this bug report
recently? I've been over your initial report several times, and it
isn't clear to me what was going on with your system, let along why
aptitude did what it did.
I think it might be appropriate to close this bug -- without
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 04:29:30PM +0300, root [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to
say:
This message after run
Uncaught exception: vs_progress.cc:38: virtual void vs_progress::paint(const
style): Assertion Percent=0 Percent=100 failed.
This seems to be a nasty one; I don't know why I have an
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 06:03:17PM +0200, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
On Thu, 17 May 2007 20:57:30 -0700 Daniel Burrows wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 09:33:38PM +0200, Francesco Poli
[EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say:
[...]
Indeed, if explicit permission
Version: 0.4.4-5~1
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 10:35:25AM +0200, Tobias Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Now it happend a second time within a week, so time to file it as a bug.
I invoked aptitude update; aptitude -i and after the update, the
following assertion failed:
Nicht
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 05:49:54PM +0200, Bas Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
I get the feeling you closed the wrong bug here. Or am I missing some
connection?
Oh, fer the love of...
This is the second time I've mistyped that bug number. My fingers
hate me. :-/ It should be
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 08:22:49AM -0300, Ben Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
This isn't merely a matter of convenience for Debian-live. The live CDs
produced by live-helper use casper which sets no root password. Instead
the live user uses sudo. Thus, the aptitude menu entry
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 05:27:27PM -0400, Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.4.4-4
Severity: normal
tasksel has to run aptitude --without-recommends because there are
(still; see #388290) a great many bogus recommends that would unduely
bloat the
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 09:33:38PM +0200, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
On Mon, 14 May 2007 08:30:41 -0700 Daniel Burrows wrote:
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 11:36:36PM +0200, Francesco Poli
[EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say:
I've just found out where the problem lies
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:57:19AM -0400, Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Daniel Burrows wrote:
I have a patch in the current aptitude darcs head that will do what you
want, so this should be fixed in the next release.
Will I need to change how tasksel calls aptitude
Hi all,
This is in reply to the various bugs about the aptitude resolver
dying with an uncaught exception. I've uploaded a version to
experimental that I hope will fix this problem; if you have a chance,
it would be great if you could test this and confirm that it works
for you.
Thanks,
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 11:36:36PM +0200, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
I've just found out where the problem lies.
While hardening the system I set 007 as default umask for regular user
and as system-wide setting. I also had set umask 007 for root: since
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 12:54:13AM +0200, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
Hence I would say this file is not installed by any package.
I guess it's created by the first run of aptitude, right?
Yes, it is.
=== src/generic/aptcache.cc, line 551 =
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 02:07:40PM +0100, Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 06:14:26PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
Could you send the output of
ps uax | grep apt
ps uax | grep dpkg
dhansak:/home/grimoire# ps uax | grep apt
root
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 07:32:33PM +0200, Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
Daniel, time for an upload?
I'd like to fix #421395 and friends first, if possible.
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 10:52:34AM +0200, Brice Goglin [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
About 5 years ago, you reported a bug to the Debian BTS regarding random
segfaults of the X server on a MGA G400 board. Did you reproduce this
problem recently? With Xorg/Etch? If not, I will close this
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:04:29PM +0200, Wolodja Wentland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.4.4-4
Severity: normal
As discussed at length in debian-user it should be possible to use
release identifiers like oldstable, stable, .. and their actual
names
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 06:18:38PM +0200, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
On Fri, 11 May 2007 18:12:03 -0700 Daniel Burrows wrote:
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 07:30:32PM +0200, Francesco Poli
[EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say:
$ aptitude search xserver-xorg
What
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 11:06:16PM +0200, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
tags 406193 - unreproducible
tags 406193 + confirmed
thanks
I can confirm this BR on both my EM64T (dual core) box running amd64 and a
dual processor hppa (64-bit) box I have.
I have never seen it on
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 07:19:53PM +0200, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
On an updated lenny box, aptitude -s purge fails to show what
would actually be done by aptitude purge
When I installed the xorg package:
# aptitude install xorg
some one hundred of other
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 05:34:51PM +0300, Markus Järvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
$ aptitude install already-installed-package
I was trying to install a package which I didn't know was already
installed. The output indicated that basically nothing happened, so I
thought
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 07:30:32PM +0200, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
$ aptitude search xserver-xorg
What happens if you run this command as root?
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 07:18:07PM +0100, Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.4.4-4
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
After removing some old, unused packages, aptitude upgrade fails:
# strace -o aptitude.strace aptitude
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 03:46:05PM +0200, Michael Vogt [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
It also changes the non-file backed operation mode to use anonymous
mmap instead of new char[].
Does this solve an observed problem? I'd expect these to do
more-or-less the same thing. (won't matter
I have code to at least avoid crashing on this input, although I don't
think the output is what's intended. :-/
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks -- I've actually been able to reproduce this myself if I skip
through the first few solutions. It looks like there's some sort of
inconsistency in aptitude's model of the world. Haven't tracked it down
yet.
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 03:41:42PM -0700, Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Daniel Burrows wrote:
Thanks -- I've actually been able to reproduce this myself if I skip
through the first few solutions. It looks like there's some sort of
inconsistency in aptitude's model
Hi,
Could you send me the output of
aptitude -o 'Aptitude::CmdLine::Resolver-Debug=true' dist-upgrade
?
Thanks,
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To gather more information -- could you add the option
Aptitude::CmdLine::Resolver-Dump=/path/to/some/file
and send me the file that's generated when you crash aptitude again?
Also, I'd be interested in seeing what you get when you set
Aptitude::CmdLine::Resolver-Debug=true
Package: portmap
Version: 5-26
Severity: minor
The portmap debconf template asks:
Should portmap be bound to the loopback address?
But portmap listens on loopback regardless of whether you pick yes
or no here; the question you're asking is, should portmap ignore all
interfaces besides
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 11:15:52AM -0700, Josh Triplett [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Daniel Burrows wrote:
To gather more information -- could you add the option
Aptitude::CmdLine::Resolver-Dump=/path/to/some/file
and send me the file that's generated when you crash
801 - 900 of 1580 matches
Mail list logo
