Re: Update was Re: Unsatisfied depends in slink main
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote: Of course this is not at all true, the package files are generated directly from the .deb files daily they are never wrong, if they were then our tools would stop working! While what you say is in principle true, in practice it doesn't always work out that way. My experience has been that many problems experienced by our users, and much of the fault on broken CDs have been the result of out-of-sync Packages files. In my most recent personal case, that broken sync was caused by a broken mirror configuration WRT symlinks. The result was a package in the Packages file but not in the archives. This can happen through a chain of mirrors in several ways. (Yes, I know that there are safeguards to help, but they are not always used) There is a simpler solution to this as used by the apt-cdrom tool, we simply verify that the package files are correct for the media they describe. If an entry exists there is a 99% chance that it is actually correct. Mind you this process takes a long time, but I think it is worth it as it makes our CD installs virtually fool proof Jason
Re: Update was Re: Unsatisfied depends in slink main
Jason Gunthorpe writes: On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote: While what you say is in principle true, in practice it doesn't always work out that way. My experience has been that many problems experienced by our users, and much of the fault on broken CDs have been the result of out-of-sync Packages files. In my most recent personal case, that broken sync was caused by a broken mirror configuration WRT symlinks. The result was a package in the Packages file but not in the archives. This can happen through a chain of mirrors in several ways. (Yes, I know that there are safeguards to help, but they are not always used) There is a simpler solution to this as used by the apt-cdrom tool, we simply verify that the package files are correct for the media they describe. If an entry exists there is a 99% chance that it is actually correct. Hopefully this will be less of a problem in future - the slink_cd script is forced to generate its own Packages files because of the way packages are split across mutliple disks. This means that there is no chance of it being out of sync with the packages on the disk... -- Steve McIntyre, CURS CCE, Cambridge, UK. [EMAIL PROTECTED] a href=http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~stevem/comp/My PC page/a Can't keep my eyes from the circling sky, +-- Tongue-tied twisted, Just an earth-bound misfit, I... |Finger for PGP key
Update was Re: Unsatisfied depends in slink main
First I want to thank everyone for their replies. Second I want to appologize for my incorrect phrasing of the subject line. Several people have pointed out that there are very nice packages that deal with dependencies, while others pointed out that the other ored elements satisfied the dependency needs. I should have made it clear that my intent was to find any and all references, that could not be satisfied in the supplied set of packages. As the Packages file is the weak link in the distribution method, I decided to interrogate the actual packages in the given archive and parse their control files. As it turns out, the issue with ppp stems from the fact that, although I started out with a hamm archive as the seed for my slink mirror, satisfying the symlinks, when the package in hamm changed, and the older version was no longer correct, mirror removed it and then failed to make the link to a non-existant hamm directory on my site. I'll be able to recover any other missing files by looking at the changelog, but this brings up another issue. I had understood that, as packages were changed that these symlinks would go away, so all changed packages in hamm should have also updated in slink, disolving the link? In any case, as we are in a freeze, shouldn't these links be replaced with the actual files? I mean, if slink is in freeze, and hamm is still being upgraded... Thanks, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of The Debian Linux User's Guide _-_-_-_-_-_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Re: Update was Re: Unsatisfied depends in slink main
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote: I should have made it clear that my intent was to find any and all references, that could not be satisfied in the supplied set of packages. As the Packages file is the weak link in the distribution method, I decided to interrogate the actual packages in the given archive and parse their control files. Of course this is not at all true, the package files are generated directly from the .deb files daily they are never wrong, if they were then our tools would stop working! Jason
Re: Update was Re: Unsatisfied depends in slink main
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote: I should have made it clear that my intent was to find any and all references, that could not be satisfied in the supplied set of packages. As the Packages file is the weak link in the distribution method, I decided to interrogate the actual packages in the given archive and parse their control files. Of course this is not at all true, the package files are generated directly from the .deb files daily they are never wrong, if they were then our tools would stop working! While what you say is in principle true, in practice it doesn't always work out that way. My experience has been that many problems experienced by our users, and much of the fault on broken CDs have been the result of out-of-sync Packages files. In my most recent personal case, that broken sync was caused by a broken mirror configuration WRT symlinks. The result was a package in the Packages file but not in the archives. This can happen through a chain of mirrors in several ways. (Yes, I know that there are safeguards to help, but they are not always used) For myself, I draw through such a narrow straw that it may take days to complete a pass. I know, under these circumstances that I must repeat the mirror until a pass can occure in shorter timeframes. I also know that there are ways to unsync if you have a bigger straw. It's only a matter of timing. Several of the CDs that have been produced by vendors with unspectacular results have been partialy the result of broken Packages files. I have always considered this to be a weak link in the installation process. I know that when I build Packages files using dpkg-scanpackages, that it can take a long time, and that such reconstruction within and FTP install/upgrade is difficult without retrieving the archive, but when the package installation tools can't recover the Packages file, a broken CD is unrecoverable trash. Being able to run against an arbitrary archive is going to become more and more necessary as the distribution becomes larger. Thanks, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of The Debian Linux User's Guide _-_-_-_-_-_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Re: Unsatisfied depends in slink main
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote: Since the recent discussion with Richard Stallman about the unsatisfied suggests message, I have undertaken the examination of the main archives. The script that I am working on unpacks all of the .deb files it finds and collects Package:, Provides:, Pre-Depends:, Depends:, Recommends:, and Suggests: field information and deterines several things. You do realize that is why we have a 'Packages' file? In any event your script is not handling virtual pacakges, ppp is a virtual package. Here is a list of all unmet deps in main: Package chameleon version 1.0-2 has an unmet dep: Depends: libglib1.1.12 (= 1.1.12-1) Depends: libgtk1.1.12 (= 1.1.12-1) (Ehm? This one is new, someone should fix it) A list of unmet suggests/recommends in main is too long to include here. Jason
Re: Unsatisfied depends in slink main
DS == Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DS The most interesting problem looks like ppp, for which there isn't DS a package. This looks like a problem in your script, I would say. http://www.debian.org/Packages/frozen/base/ppp.html shows it, and I can happily download it from ftp.debian.org It is also present in unstable. DS CGI-modules faqomatic The complete field is: Depends: rcs, perl, perl (= 5.004) | CGI-modules so obviuosly, perl = 5.004 contains the functionality CGI-modules provided, no? Maybe it should Provide: CGI-modules ? DS libglib1.1.12 (= 1.1.12-1) chameleon DS libgtk1.1.12 (= 1.1.12-1)chameleon The 1.1.12 are present in unstable. DS libmagick4g-lzw imagemagick DS libmagick4g-lzw perlmagick It is in non-free. The packages Depend on libmagick4g | libmagick4g-lzw DS ppp (=2.3.5-2)ppp-pam DS ppp (= 2.2.0f-20)dunc DS ppp (= 2.3) masqdialer DS ppp (= 2.3) pppconfig DS ppp (= 2.3.0)wvdial DS ppp (2.2) diald DS ppp pppupd DS ppp pptp-linux ppp is in the distribution. DS ssh rstart DS ssh rstartd Hmm. ssh is non-free and non-us DS tcl74 dotfile DS tcl75 dotfile DS tclx emacspeak DS tclx74emacspeak DS tclx75emacspeak DS tk40 dotfile DS tk40 x10-automate DS tk41 dotfile DS tk41 x10-automate I believe these versions have been superceded by tcl8.0 and tk8.0. Some inconsistency, but looks like easy to solve (don't know for the tcl/tk stuff). Ciao, Martin
Re: Unsatisfied depends in slink main
Previously Dale Scheetz wrote: The script that I am working on unpacks all of the .deb files it finds and collects Package:, Provides:, Pre-Depends:, Depends:, Recommends:, and Suggests: field information and deterines several things. You do know we have a packages file, don't you? And you do know this is already being done by apt-cache, lintian and my relscan (output at http://master.debian.org/~wakkerma/unmet.html, regenerated every 12 hours)? Wichert. -- == This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman. E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/ pgpVBUhe9PgF6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Unsatisfied depends in slink main
Dale Sheetz writes: ... Package not in archives Package which depends on Package not in archives ... tclx emacspeak tclx74emacspeak tclx75emacspeak Here's the actual dependency for emacspeak: Depends: tclx76|tclx75|tclx74|tclx, emacs20 We have /debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/oldlibs/tclx76_7.6.0-3.deb in slink, but older packages would also suffice. What's wrong with this? - Jim Van Zandt
Re: Unsatisfied depends in slink main
Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: giflib3g-dev gdk-imlib-dev giflib3g-dev imlib-dev giflib3g-dev libfnlib-dev The full dependencies for these is more like: libungif3g-dev | giflib3g-dev Basically, the unfree giflib stuff has to be in the depends field, because it's in an or relationship with the equivalent free package. Cheers, - Jim
Re: Unsatisfied depends in slink main
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote: Since the recent discussion with Richard Stallman about the unsatisfied suggests message, I have undertaken the examination of the main archives. The script that I am working on unpacks all of the .deb files it finds and collects Package:, Provides:, Pre-Depends:, Depends:, Recommends:, and Suggests: field information and deterines several things. You do realize that is why we have a 'Packages' file? Yes, and the current packages file indicates that ppp is in base, but it isn't there. The whole reason for scanning the archives was to catch such errors. In any event your script is not handling virtual pacakges, ppp is a virtual package. I add all Provides: to the list of available packages that I use. So if some package provides ppp it isn't indicating that fact. Here is a list of all unmet deps in main: Package chameleon version 1.0-2 has an unmet dep: Depends: libglib1.1.12 (= 1.1.12-1) Depends: libgtk1.1.12 (= 1.1.12-1) (Ehm? This one is new, someone should fix it) A list of unmet suggests/recommends in main is too long to include here. Actually my lists are not much worse than the depends. If I get a chance to work on this today, I'll put the other lists together. Thanks, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of The Debian Linux User's Guide _-_-_-_-_-_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Re: Unsatisfied depends in slink main
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
The script that I am working on unpacks all of the .deb files it finds and
collects Package:, Provides:, Pre-Depends:, Depends:, Recommends:, and
Suggests: field information and deterines several things.
You do realize that is why we have a 'Packages' file?
Yes, and the current packages file indicates that ppp is in base, but it
isn't there. The whole reason for scanning the archives was to catch such
errors.
saens{jgg}/org/ftp.debian.org/ftp/dists/slink/main/binary-i386#ls */ppp*
base/ppp_2.3.5-2.deb@ net/ppp-pam_2.3.5-2.deb@
base/pppconfig_1.1.deb@ net/pppupd_0.23-9.deb
Oh? The package file is 100% accurate anything else is a serious bug.
Jason
Re: Unsatisfied depends in slink main
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, James R. Van Zandt wrote: Dale Sheetz writes: ... Package not in archives Package which depends on Package not in archives ... tclx emacspeak tclx74emacspeak tclx75emacspeak Here's the actual dependency for emacspeak: Depends: tclx76|tclx75|tclx74|tclx, emacs20 We have /debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/oldlibs/tclx76_7.6.0-3.deb in slink, but older packages would also suffice. What's wrong with this? My mistake. The script parses out each depends and doesn't pay attention to the or-ness. Looks like time for a redesign ;-) Thanks, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of The Debian Linux User's Guide _-_-_-_-_-_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Re: Unsatisfied depends in slink main
On 21 Jan 1999, Jim Pick wrote: Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: giflib3g-dev gdk-imlib-dev giflib3g-dev imlib-dev giflib3g-dev libfnlib-dev The full dependencies for these is more like: libungif3g-dev | giflib3g-dev Basically, the unfree giflib stuff has to be in the depends field, because it's in an or relationship with the equivalent free package. You are correct. I haven't dealt properly with the or conditions. Thanks, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of The Debian Linux User's Guide _-_-_-_-_-_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Re: Unsatisfied depends in slink main
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
The script that I am working on unpacks all of the .deb files it finds
and
collects Package:, Provides:, Pre-Depends:, Depends:, Recommends:, and
Suggests: field information and deterines several things.
You do realize that is why we have a 'Packages' file?
Yes, and the current packages file indicates that ppp is in base, but it
isn't there. The whole reason for scanning the archives was to catch such
errors.
saens{jgg}/org/ftp.debian.org/ftp/dists/slink/main/binary-i386#ls */ppp*
base/ppp_2.3.5-2.deb@ net/ppp-pam_2.3.5-2.deb@
base/pppconfig_1.1.deb@ net/pppupd_0.23-9.deb
Oh? The package file is 100% accurate anything else is a serious bug.
Well, I have everything in your list _but_ ppp_2.3.5-2.deb. I mirror
ftp.debian.org on a daily basis. If I get some time today, I'll take a
look at master and see what else I'm missing.
Thanks,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of The Debian Linux User's Guide _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
