Re: Upgrading from 1.1 to frozen
Do dpkg-ftp or dpkg-mountable modify /var/lib/dpkg/available directly ? If so then that is why this problem (older dpkg versions not understanding epochs) has such serious consequences. If you tried to dpkg --merge-available or dpkg --update-available with a Packages file that the currently-installed dpkg wasn't able to parse it would refuse to do it, and leave you with a working dpkg. If a dselect method script just copies the file instead then dpkg doesn't get a chance to do this check. Perhaps someone decided that the 0.001 second saved by not having to parse the file is worth the extra hassle for the users of having their dpkg broken, or that they didn't understand the --merge-available or --update-available functions so clearly they should just bypass them. Perhaps dpkg should encrypt /var/lib/dpkg/* to stop random packages from messing with it ? Ian. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Upgrading from 1.1 to frozen
On May 28, Ian Jackson wrote Do dpkg-ftp or dpkg-mountable modify /var/lib/dpkg/available directly ? I doubt it. Certainly dpkg-mountable never modifies any system files directly, since (as I'm sure you're aware) this is a rather silly thing to do, and IIRC from reading the dpkg-ftp source that doesn't either. In fact, I believe that dpkg-ftp keeps it's own copy of the available packages database, totally seperate from dpkg's. Yes, I do *read* the available file, as well as the status file. But all writing is done via dpkg, as it should be. [snip: this could be the problem] If a dselect method script just copies the file instead then dpkg doesn't get a chance to do this check. Perhaps someone decided that the 0.001 second saved by not having to parse the file is worth the extra hassle for the users of having their dpkg broken, or that they didn't understand the --merge-available or --update-available functions so clearly they should just bypass them. Do I detect a hint of sarcasm there? dpkg-mountable should never have been written in the first place. But the functionality it provides was sorely needed, and so I adapted a script which I had been using locally for a while, packaged it up, and uploaded it for the benefit of others. Yes, it is faster than the `standard' methods, or was last time I compared; yes, I do happen to think that this is a good thing. But I would like to point out that if I was purely after speed, I wouldn't have written in Perl; dpkg-mountable exists because it provides features (logging, md5 checking, parallel trees) that dselect doesn't, not simply because it's a little faster (I'm not even sure if it is any more, I haven't checked since v0.2). Perhaps dpkg should encrypt /var/lib/dpkg/* to stop random packages from messing with it ? Yes, that's a good idea. Really. I don't find it at all useful to grep the available packages file, or to modify package scripts that don't work. If you had approached me politely, I would be more than happy to explain what I've done; I would still be happy to do so. Had you limited this post to asking whether or not this could be the problem, I could have replied simply that it wasn't. But I found the second half of your post offensive, and totally unnecessary. If you still have a problem with this, please respond by private email. Somewhat miffed, Andy Mortimer Author, dpkg-mountable. -- Andy Mortimer, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.poboxes.com/andy.mortimer PGP public key available on key servers -- To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub; For in that death of sleep what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this mortal coil -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Upgrading from 1.1 to frozen
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do dpkg-ftp or dpkg-mountable modify /var/lib/dpkg/available directly ? No, it doesn't. It keeps its own copies of the Packages files in /var/lib/dpkg/methods/ftp and correctly merges them in with --merge-avail. If you tried to dpkg --merge-available or dpkg --update-available with a Packages file that the currently-installed dpkg wasn't able to parse it would refuse to do it, and leave you with a working dpkg. Apparently not. Remember that older versions of dpkg did claim to support epochs. Various developers quickly found that it didn't work very well, so Michael D. was kind enough to get epochs working in 1.4.0.7. Nobody realized, however, that older versions were broken in this particular way, and that the --assert-working-epoch check in the preinst wasn't enough. I'll ignore the second half of your post. Guy -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Upgrading from 1.1 to frozen
Hi, No, niether dpkg-ftp nor dpkg-mountable modify the available file directly. What, then, causes the problems upgrading to frozen? Methinks (despite the tone of your remarks) that the problem then does in fact lie in dpkg; as it seems to accept a packages file that it consequently can't parse, breaking the install. In any case, encrypting the directory is wrong, (even if programs were breaking the process the right thing to do is to submit bugs against them), since the information can be used legitimately by other programs and humans. I find the ability to parse the config files in wetware extremely useful in case of problems in dpkg (a look at the bug database indicates that dpkg is not immune to gremlins). manoj who would be not surprised if Ian's message infuriates people. -- Congresswoman: Well, Mr. Dallas... we've heard your smut masquerading as songs... and we've heard how teen prostitution, pregnancy, drug use, cults, runaways, suicide and poor hygiene are sweeping this nation. We thought you might like to share with the committee any particular causes you might see for those latter problems... Steve Dallas: I dunno. Maybe the proliferation of narrow, suffocating zealotry masquerading as parenting in this country. Bloom County Manoj Srivastava url:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile, Alabama USAurl:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Upgrading from 1.1 to frozen
Manoj Srivastava wrote: People will probably have told you this, but the Packages file was not corrupted, those 1:x.x.xx are critical (these are epochs), and the problem actually is that the version of dpkg being used is too old to understand epochs. OUCH. Is there any reason why this can't be handled in a different field? Breaking compatibility for something like this is censored. I thought one of the goals of Debian was ease of upgrade. I'm sure that 95% of users who totally hose their systems by this WILL do a complete reinstall, and it won't be Debian they will be installing. This is the most critical bug I've seen in the release phase of 1.3. Something needs to be done about it, urgently. Why is this information (about the need to upgrade dpkg *first*) not screaming out all over the web pages and the installation README's? That is very probably not enough. People don't read README files unless these are rammed down their throats. -- Thomas Koenig, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double logarithmic diagram. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Upgrading from 1.1 to frozen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Tue, 27 May 1997, Thomas Koenig wrote: Manoj Srivastava wrote: People will probably have told you this, but the Packages file was not corrupted, those 1:x.x.xx are critical (these are epochs), and the problem actually is that the version of dpkg being used is too old to understand epochs. OUCH. Is there any reason why this can't be handled in a different field? Breaking compatibility for something like this is censored. The epoch part of the version field was always specified, it's just that early versions of dselect or dpkg had a bug regarding them. I thought one of the goals of Debian was ease of upgrade. I'm sure that 95% of users who totally hose their systems by this WILL do a complete reinstall, and it won't be Debian they will be installing. This is the most critical bug I've seen in the release phase of 1.3. Something needs to be done about it, urgently. Solution to bug, install dpkg-1.4.0.8. The real problem is someone trying to skip a release (1.2) and therefore missing the bug fix in 1.2 that would prevent this problem. Why is this information (about the need to upgrade dpkg *first*) not screaming out all over the web pages and the installation README's? That is very probably not enough. People don't read README files unless these are rammed down their throats. And if you don't read the documentation, especially the release instructions, you get what you deserve. I can't tell you how sick I am of hearing people complain about a broken make or sendmail after upgrading their kernel from 1.2 to 2.0.x because they DIDN'T READ THE DOCUMENTATION. Really, we knew about the epoch problem in 1.2, we fixed it, the fix has been discussed on debian-user a number of times. The solution is: dpkg -i dpkg_1.4.0.8.deb dpkg --clear-available ++ | Scott K. Ellis | Argue for your limitations and | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | sure enough, they're yours. | ||-- Illusions | ++ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBM4rhg6Ck2fENdzpVAQFGJgP/V2VzSp1AdDgth6hXCwjw+f2x2M8iib6k H3dbCCa9jWkTYrvI1tR3EOD6H3xVx0Js5HrGv2EbeVjIAswVXuUd6Ad8fXIrW3+8 szkQBLJIFKSgoRZcf7wciTle6EV3UGAma4dgRO7Pn42EUY7gySYrgs/9Xp+TJc7R xPImy2ujx2E= =Vjx8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Upgrading from 1.1 to frozen
Scott K. Ellis wrote: And if you don't read the documentation, especially the release instructions, you get what you deserve. What part of the documentation are you referring to? I found nothing referring to that issue in the READMEs or in the doc subdirectory. Where else is a user supposed to look? BTW, I'm really sorry for disregarding the installation instructions for hamm. The fact that they are nowhere to be found is no excuse, I agree. -- Thomas Koenig, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double logarithmic diagram. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Upgrading from 1.1 to frozen
On May 27, Thomas Koenig wrote Manoj Srivastava wrote: People will probably have told you this, but the Packages file was not corrupted, those 1:x.x.xx are critical (these are epochs), and the problem actually is that the version of dpkg being used is too old to understand epochs. OUCH. Is there any reason why this can't be handled in a different field? Breaking compatibility for something like this is censored. These packages should conflict with the versions of dpkg which have the problem. [Or maybe a predepends on a good version of dpkg?] -- Raul -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Upgrading from 1.1 to frozen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Koenig) wrote on 27.05.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Scott K. Ellis wrote: And if you don't read the documentation, especially the release instructions, you get what you deserve. What part of the documentation are you referring to? I found nothing referring to that issue in the READMEs or in the doc subdirectory. Where else is a user supposed to look? He's probably referring to someone who said putting it in READMEs is not enough because people don't read those. I wonder who that someone might have been? Incidentally, I completely agree with Scott. I also agree with Manoj that this needs to be put into the documentation. Here's some possible text: -- snip -- *** WARNING ** There is a CRITICAL BUG in old versions of dpkg, that will mess up the dpkg database if you try to upgrade. The solution is to FIRST upgrade dpkg from the command line, BEFORE EVEN STARTING DSELECT. To do this: find the dpkg_*.deb file [better give exact path here], then do dpkg -i .../dpkg_deb *** WARNING ** -- snip -- Put that in every doc, and put it as a separate DPKG-BUG.txt or somesuch in a few prominent places (like the FTP root and the install disk directory). MfG Kai -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Upgrading from 1.1 to frozen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raul Miller) wrote on 27.05.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: These packages should conflict with the versions of dpkg which have the problem. [Or maybe a predepends on a good version of dpkg?] That won't help. Once you [U]pdate, the old dpkg will refuse to work. You don't even get to where a Conflicts: could do anything. MfG Kai -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Upgrading from 1.1 to frozen
Thomas Koenig wrote: I just spent an interesting afternoon trying to upgrade a 1.1 system to 1.3. First, /var/lib/dpkg/available was corrupted because of some incorrect values in the Version - field (somehow they had gotten to the format of 1:1-2 or similar; bug report submitted). I fixed these by This is a legitimate version format. You failed to upgrade dpkg before upgrading everything else. Fellow Debian developers, we _really_ need to put up warnings that this needs to be done! Otherwise innocent people will corrupt their systems by upgrading. There shoud be a heavily pointed-to Upgrade FAQ, explaining that some packages (dpkg, ldso, libc5) should be upgraded by hand before any attempt at a massive all at once upgrade. I think this would have prevented most of your other problems as well... --Galen -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Upgrading from 1.1 to frozen
Galen Hazelwood wrote: This is a legitimate version format. You failed to upgrade dpkg before upgrading everything else. Fellow Debian developers, we _really_ need to put up warnings that this needs to be done! Otherwise innocent people will corrupt their systems by upgrading. Maybe we need to build an expiry date into dpkg? ie. dpkg will not install any packages that are newer than the expiry date, other than dpkg (and friends). Cheers, - Jim pgpELcLG5fYK3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Upgrading from 1.1 to frozen
Hi, People will probably have told you this, but the Packages file was not corrupted, those 1:x.x.xx are critical (these are epochs), and the problem actually is that the version of dpkg being used is too old to understand epochs. Why is this information (about the need to upgrade dpkg *first*) not screaming out all over the web pages and the installation README's? (pardon me if the information is in the README's) I think we should have it in big blinking font ;-) manoj -- Everything that can be invented has been invented. Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899. Manoj Srivastava url:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile, Alabama USAurl:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Upgrading from 1.1 to frozen
Why is this information (about the need to upgrade dpkg *first*) not screaming out all over the web pages and the installation README's? (pardon me if the information is in the README's) Perhaps dselect just needs to always update dpkg before calling anything else? (dftp does this) I think we should have it in big blinking font ;-) Netscape*blinkingEnabled: False snicker Brian ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) --- Debian GNU/Linux! Search it at http://insite.verisim.com/search/debian/simple -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Upgrading from 1.1 to frozen
Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps dselect just needs to always update dpkg before calling anything else? (dftp does this) In this case it wouldn't help as the Update breaks it. Guy -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
