Bug#768599: man-db: cycle found while processing triggers:
Control: reassign 768598 dpkg 1.17.21 Control: reassign 768600 dpkg 1.17.21 Control: forcemerge -1 768598 768600 Control: affects -1 man-db font-config readhead-fedora On 08/11/14 17:38, Guillem Jover wrote: Hi! On Sat, 2014-11-08 at 16:56:33 +, Colin Watson wrote: Control: reassign -1 dpkg 1.17.21 On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 04:05:17PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: package: man-db severity: serious x-debbugs-cc: debian-d...@lists.debian.org I'm not 100% sure the following issue is caused by man-db, please reassign appropriatly if it is not. https://jenkins.debian.net/job/chroot-installation_wheezy_install_education- networked_upgrade_to_jessie/2/console Setting up startpar (0.59-3) ... Installing new version of config file /etc/init/startpar-bridge.conf ... dpkg: cycle found while processing triggers: chain of packages whose triggers are or may be responsible: man-db -> man-db packages' pending triggers which are or may be unresolvable: man-db: /usr/share/man dpkg: error processing package man-db (--configure): triggers looping, abandoned Setting up sysvinit-utils (2.88dsf-57) ... Errors were encountered while processing: man-db E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) This has got to be a dpkg bug. There's no good reason for a package not to be able to trigger itself, and this has worked for ages. That's because (according to the log), the man-db package being triggered (version 2.6.2-1) is the one still using the awaiting interest directive, which got switched to interest-noawait in 2.6.3-6. I'll have to add Breaks for any such packages. :/ But I'm not sure how much that might make the upgrade more difficult, as dpkg contains already many Breaks/Conflicts. Also font-config (#768598) / readahead-fedora (#768600). Emilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#758616: dpkg: support installing M-A:same packages with different binNMU version
On 21/08/14 00:21, Guillem Jover wrote: > Control: forcemerge 684625 -1 > > On Tue, 2014-08-19 at 11:25:19 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> Package: dpkg >> Version: 1.17.11 >> Severity: wishlist > >> Currently M-A:same packages with different versions can't be co-installed. >> That prevents packages that have been binNMUed in one architecture but not >> another to be co-installed, e.g. >> >> libfoo_1.1-1:i386 >> libfoo_1.1-1+b1:amd64 >> >> or >> >> libfoo_1.1-1+b1:i386 >> libfoo_1.1-1+b2:amd64 >> >> Can't be co-installed. >> >> This is problematic because packages get binNMU on a subset of architectures >> very often (whenever it's not needed to binNMU them everywhere). >> >> See e.g. #758527. > > Yes, extensively discusssed in the mailing lists and already filed, > this is just a different side of the same assumptions. Merging. I saw #684625 but thought it was the old problem that installing +b1:i386 and +b1:amd64 failed because of the different changelogs, problem that was solved / worked around by adding binnmu changelog entries in separate changelogs. Anyway, can you provide an update on this? Has there been any progress? Thanks, Emilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#758616: dpkg: support installing M-A:same packages with different binNMU version
Package: dpkg Version: 1.17.11 Severity: wishlist (X-d-cc debian-release@) Hi, Currently M-A:same packages with different versions can't be co-installed. That prevents packages that have been binNMUed in one architecture but not another to be co-installed, e.g. libfoo_1.1-1:i386 libfoo_1.1-1+b1:amd64 or libfoo_1.1-1+b1:i386 libfoo_1.1-1+b2:amd64 Can't be co-installed. This is problematic because packages get binNMU on a subset of architectures very often (whenever it's not needed to binNMU them everywhere). See e.g. #758527. Emilio -- System Information: Debian Release: jessie/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (800, 'unstable'), (700, 'experimental'), (650, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 3.14-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages dpkg depends on: ii libbz2-1.0 1.0.6-7 ii libc62.19-7 ii liblzma5 5.1.1alpha+20120614-2 ii libselinux1 2.3-1 ii tar 1.27.1-2 ii zlib1g 1:1.2.8.dfsg-1 dpkg recommends no packages. Versions of packages dpkg suggests: ii apt 1.0.6 -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#555743: dpkg-gencontrol: add support for Description:-s in the Source package stanza
On 02/03/10 11:05, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: >> What is the stance of dpkg-dev maintainers on this? > > I think it's ok. But some more feedback would be welcome, CCing -devel for > this. The substvars approach sounds good to me. I think I'd use it quite a lot, specially in libraries. Cheers, Emilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#560071: dpkg-gencontrol: should fail if an arch:all package has a -any wildcard relationship
Package: dpkg-dev Version: 1.15.5.4 Severity: important Hi, pochu> I have an arch:all package that depends on foo [!hurd-any] pochu> if I build it on i386, the package Depends: foo pochu> but if I build it on hurd-i386, it doesn't pochu> since it's arch:all, this is problematic... This is problematic since we get a different set of dependencies based on where the package was built, but since arch:all packages are only built once, this is non-deterministic. The fix here would probably be to let dpkg-gencontrol fail if there are wildcards in an arch:all package. Cheers, Emilio -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.31-1-686 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=es_ES.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=es_ES.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages dpkg-dev depends on: ii base-files5.0.0 Debian base system miscellaneous f ii binutils 2.20-4 The GNU assembler, linker and bina ii bzip2 1.0.5-3high-quality block-sorting file co ii dpkg 1.15.5.4 Debian package management system ii libtimedate-perl 1.1900-1 Time and date functions for Perl ii lzma 4.43-14Compression method of 7z format in ii make 3.81-7 An utility for Directing compilati ii patch 2.6-2 Apply a diff file to an original ii perl [perl5] 5.10.1-8 Larry Wall's Practical Extraction ii perl-modules 5.10.1-8 Core Perl modules ii xz-utils 4.999.9beta+20091116-1 XZ-format compression utilities Versions of packages dpkg-dev recommends: ii build-essential 11.4 Informational list of build-essent ii fakeroot 1.14.4-1 Gives a fake root environment ii gcc [c-compiler] 4:4.3.4-2 The GNU C compiler ii gcc-4.1 [c-compiler] 4.1.2-27 The GNU C compiler ii gcc-4.3 [c-compiler] 4.3.4-6The GNU C compiler ii gcc-4.4 [c-compiler] 4.4.2-3The GNU C compiler ii gnupg 1.4.10-2 GNU privacy guard - a free PGP rep ii gpgv 1.4.10-2 GNU privacy guard - signature veri Versions of packages dpkg-dev suggests: ii debian-keyring [debian-mainta 2009.11.04 GnuPG (and obsolete PGP) keys of D -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#535355: dpkg-dev: dpkg-gencontrol -DPackage=foo -pfoo fails if foo isn't in debian/control
Hi Raphael, sorry for the delay. Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Wed, 01 Jul 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> I'm implementing automatic creation of debug packages, and to generate >> their binary control file I'm using dpkg-gencontrol. The debug package >> are not listed in debian/control, and thus when calling dpkg-gencontrol >> I get something like: >> >> $ dpkg-gencontrol -DPackage=foo -pfoo >> dpkg-gencontrol: error: package foo not in control info >> >> Since I'm adding the field "Package: foo" using -D, I'd expect that to >> work. >> >> What do you think? I'm willing to provide patches if you think this is >> or might be a good idea. > > I think this is crazy. The entry for package foo would be mostly empty anyway. My idea was to fill it with several -D options. The source entries would be inherited from the source stanza of the control file. > I suggest you generate another file (copying it and extending it as > required) and you use the -c option of dpkg-gencontrol to use that file > instead of debian/control. That file can even be a temporary file outside > of the source tree. That sounds too hacky and I want to avoid it. Right now I'm facking it from stdin but then I miss the source fields. > Generating binary control files for non-referenced packages could be a new > feature, but it would be a new option and would not be based on a hack > like you suggest: dpkg-gencontrol --dynamic -pfoo. > > This would fail if the the package foo is listed in the control file. That sounds good. It's similar to defining a new package with -D, so I'm happy with it. It should work with more -D options defined for that new package. Something like dpkg-gencontrol --dynamic -pfoo -DSection=debug -DPriority=extra -Dblah -c debian/control > Would that really be useful compared to creating another control file > dynamically ? I think so :) My use case is ddeb creation for packages not listed in debian/control, fwiw. Thanks for your consideration, Emilio signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#535355: dpkg-dev: dpkg-gencontrol -DPackage=foo -pfoo fails if foo isn't in debian/control
Package: dpkg-dev Version: 1.15.3 Severity: wishlist Hiya, I'm implementing automatic creation of debug packages, and to generate their binary control file I'm using dpkg-gencontrol. The debug package are not listed in debian/control, and thus when calling dpkg-gencontrol I get something like: $ dpkg-gencontrol -DPackage=foo -pfoo dpkg-gencontrol: error: package foo not in control info Since I'm adding the field "Package: foo" using -D, I'd expect that to work. What do you think? I'm willing to provide patches if you think this is or might be a good idea. Thanks, Emilio -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.30-1-686 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=es_ES.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=es_ES.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages dpkg-dev depends on: ii binutils 2.19.1-1 The GNU assembler, linker and bina ii bzip2 1.0.5-3high-quality block-sorting file co ii dpkg 1.15.3 Debian package management system ii libtimedate-perl 1.1600-9 Time and date functions for Perl ii lzma 4.43-14Compression method of 7z format in ii make 3.81-6 An utility for Directing compilati ii patch 2.5.9-5Apply a diff file to an original ii perl [perl5] 5.10.0-23 Larry Wall's Practical Extraction ii perl-modules 5.10.0-23 Core Perl modules Versions of packages dpkg-dev recommends: ii build-essential 11.4 Informational list of build-essent ii gcc [c-compiler] 4:4.3.3-9 The GNU C compiler ii gcc-4.1 [c-compiler] 4.1.2-26 The GNU C compiler ii gcc-4.3 [c-compiler] 4.3.3-13 The GNU C compiler ii gnupg 1.4.9-4GNU privacy guard - a free PGP rep ii gpgv 1.4.9-4GNU privacy guard - signature veri Versions of packages dpkg-dev suggests: ii debian-keyring2009.05.28 GnuPG (and obsolete PGP) keys of D ii debian-maintainers1.61 GPG keys of Debian maintainers -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
