clone 732937 -1
retitle -1 apt: kfreebsd: ioctl(TIOCSCTTY) fails, stair-stepped text
severity -1 normal
notfixed -1 apt/0.9.12.1
notfound -1 apt/0.9.13~exp1
notfound -1 apt/0.9.14.2
found -1 apt/1.0.7
thanks
On 29/08/14 12:34, Markus Koschany wrote:
> I still get error messages like this one.
>
>
Package: apt
Version: 1.0.7
Followup-For: Bug #732937
I still get error messages like this one.
ioctl(TIOCSCTTY) failed for fd: 17
It's true that dpkg does not fail completely anymore but the text
formatting makes the output unnecessarily hard to read. Hence my
suggestion to ship the workaround
Hi,
On 29/08/14 11:41, Markus Koschany wrote:
> This issue is still valid. If we can't find a proper solution before the
> freeze, would it be possible to ship this workaround with Jessie for
> kFreeBSD-*?
I haven't seen this bug in a long time? Earlier messages in the bug log
say it seems fixed
Hello,
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 21:33:16 +0100 Michael Vogt wrote:
[...]
> I haven't found the root cause of the issue yet unfortunately.
>
> As a workaround you can use the -o Dpkg::Use-Pty=False option, e.g.:
> # apt-get -o Dpkg::Use-Pty=False dist-upgrade
This issue is still valid. If we can't f
fredag den 9 maj 2014 klockan 14:16 skrev Stefano Rivera detta:
> This appears fixed with 1.0.3. I was getting it on almost every package
> installation, and now, with apt 1.0.3, I could complete a 300 odd
> package dist-upgrade without running into the bug.
>
> dpkg output is a bit mangled, as i
Hi Guillem (2013.12.23_08:00:00_+0200)
> I can reproduce it with simply running:
>
> $ apt-get install --reinstall git
This appears fixed with 1.0.3. I was getting it on almost every package
installation, and now, with apt 1.0.3, I could complete a 300 odd
package dist-upgrade without running i
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 08:05:06PM +, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> Control: tags -1 found apt/0.9.14.2
>
> Indeed upgrading only libapt-pkg4.12 is enough to trigger this.
[..]
I bisected this and it it appears that c3045b is the one that
introduced the problem.
Looking closer it appears that
On 16/01/2014 07:42, Michael Vogt wrote:
> What is the best way for me to reproduce this? I don't have a kfreebsd
> system right now - is installing one from a current installer image in
> kvm the quickest way (I assume so)?
The development version of D-I for kfreebsd tends to break a lot more oft
Michael Vogt (2014-01-16):
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 08:05:06PM +, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> > Control: tags -1 found apt/0.9.14.2
> >
> > Indeed upgrading only libapt-pkg4.12 is enough to trigger this.
> [..]
>
> Thanks a bunch for your bugreport and sorry for my slow reply. Its
> likely
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 08:05:06PM +, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> Control: tags -1 found apt/0.9.14.2
>
> Indeed upgrading only libapt-pkg4.12 is enough to trigger this.
[..]
Thanks a bunch for your bugreport and sorry for my slow reply. Its
likely that this is fallout from some fairly big ch
On 20:05, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> I think this is the interesting part:
Something interesting happened before that, too. I was trying to
update the 'gzip' package:
2014-01-12 19:57:56 status unpacked gzip:kfreebsd-amd64 1.6-3
2014-01-12 19:57:57 status half-configured gzip:kfreebsd-amd64 1.6
Control: tags -1 found apt/0.9.14.2
Indeed upgrading only libapt-pkg4.12 is enough to trigger this.
On 00:07, Robert Millan wrote:
> Does "ktrace -d" yield anything interesting? Or maybe one of dpkg's
> debug flags? (see dpkg --debug=help)
I think this is the interesting part:
6058 apt-get C
Control: fixed -1 apt/0.9.12.1
I haven't updated from dpkg/1.16.12 and apt/0.9.12.1, and I
haven't experienced this issue yet.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
APT prefers stable-updates
APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: kfre
Control: reassign -1 apt
Control: found -1 0.9.13~exp1
On Mon, 2013-12-23 at 07:00:00 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-12-22 at 21:53:19 +0100, Axel Beckert wrote:
> > Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > > dpkg seems to often fail on kfreebsd-amd64 on unstable (I had not
> > > experienced this wi
Hi!
Guillem Jover writes:
> The problem is that something messes with dpkg's standard output and
> error, and it fails when doing the fflush() and ferror() check on it
> in m_output() I think. But this seems to be coming from something
> lower than dpkg or apt, perhaps a change in glibc or the ke
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013, Guillem Jover wrote:
> The problem is that something messes with dpkg's standard output and
> error, and it fails when doing the fflush() and ferror() check on it
> in m_output() I think. But this seems to be coming from something
> lower than dpkg or apt, perhaps a change in g
Hi!
On Sun, 2013-12-22 at 21:53:19 +0100, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > dpkg seems to often fail on kfreebsd-amd64 on unstable (I had not
> > experienced this with wheezy).
>
> I can confirm that for kfreebsd-i386.
Ok, this is something new, I had not seen it before, but I can
On 22/12/2013 21:53, Axel Beckert wrote:
>> E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
>
> Yeah, and noting else. It's not clear, why there was an error.
>
>> This is easily recoverable by running the command a second time, which
>> usually succeeds.
>
> Yeah, but it often needs mul
Hi,
Michael Gilbert wrote:
> dpkg seems to often fail on kfreebsd-amd64 on unstable (I had not
> experienced this with wheezy).
I can confirm that for kfreebsd-i386.
> The error message is
>
> E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
Yeah, and noting else. It's not clear, why th
package: src:dpkg
severity: important
version: 1.17.5
dpkg seems to often fail on kfreebsd-amd64 on unstable (I had not
experienced this with wheezy). The error message is
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
This is easily recoverable by running the command a second time, wh
20 matches
Mail list logo
