On Mon, 04 Apr 2011, Craig Sanders wrote:
any chance of dpkg being less spammy about it? i guess some kind of
notification is required but it's not a major problem, so doesn't need
a couple of lines of output per package. perhaps a single summary line
mentioning the problem and listing the
On 03.04.11 Gordon Haverland (ghave...@materialisations.com) wrote:
Hi,
I normally compile my own kernels. dpkg-query is giving errors on
these self-compiled kernels. (newmain.1 and newmain.2) are the
specific strings causing problems.
This could be an intended change:
dpkg (1.16.0)
Hello.
On April 4, 2011, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
On 03.04.11 Gordon Haverland (ghave...@materialisations.com)
wrote:
I normally compile my own kernels. dpkg-query is giving
errors on these self-compiled kernels. (newmain.1 and
newmain.2) are the specific strings causing problems.
This
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
# dpkg-parsechangelog fails
reassign 597689 dpkg-dev
Bug #597689 [libparse-debianchangelog-perl] Build fails on new 5.12.2 perl build
Bug reassigned from package 'libparse-debianchangelog-perl' to 'dpkg-dev'.
Bug No longer marked as found in
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011, Gordon Haverland wrote:
In terms of the kernels I compiled myself, they were named
according to the instructions that were present at one time for
kernel-package. The README.gz in /usr/share/doc/kernel-package
still shows version strings that are not strictly numeric.
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
found 604241 1.16.0
Bug #604241 [dpkg] dpkg complains on missing architecture entries for removed
packages of oldoldoldstable
Bug Marked as found in versions dpkg/1.16.0.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need
I did do dpkg --clear-avail
But still for _installed obsolete packages_:
# aptitude purge libexempi3
The following packages will be REMOVED:
libexempi3{ap}
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
Need to get 0 B of archives. After unpacking 1,040 kB will be freed.
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
What do you want me to do, remove my precious obsolete mysql-doc
package?
That or face the rest of my life with those warnings?
Yes. Or get that documentation properly packaged.
(Or edit /var/lib/dpkg/status to add the missing field if you
RH == Raphael Hertzog hert...@debian.org writes:
RH On Mon, 04 Apr 2011, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
What do you want me to do, remove my precious obsolete mysql-doc
package?
That or face the rest of my life with those warnings?
RH Yes. Or get that documentation properly packaged.
It is an
Gordon Haverland wrote:
None of those packages are official Debian packages. I suggest you get in
touch with the providers of those packages so that they update them
accordingly.
As noted, it's not a bug but a deliberate change.
Wait a second. I'm not up to speed on the exact design, but
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Gordon Haverland wrote:
Sorry, sloppy of me. The quoted text is by Raphaël, not Gordon, for
those who were wondering what had happened to the world. :).
None of those packages are official Debian packages. I suggest you get in
touch with the providers of those packages
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Wait a second. I'm not up to speed on the exact design, but such
widelands versions really _were_ in the archive once (according to
snapshot.debian.org). And this is about dpkg-query looking through
the available file, not dpkg -i. Are you sure
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.16.0
Severity: important
In a sid chroot, just now:
tg@frozenfish:~ $ sudo apt-get --purge dist-upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade... Done
The following NEW packages will be installed:
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
severity 620679 important
Bug #620679 [dpkg] dpkg 1.16.0 depends on linux kernel =2.6.22
Severity set to 'important' from 'normal'
forcemerge 620679 620880
Bug#620679: dpkg 1.16.0 depends on linux kernel =2.6.22
Bug#620880: --unpack: error
severity 620679 important
forcemerge 620679 620880
quit
Hi Thorsten,
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
In a sid chroot, just now:
tg@frozenfish:~ $ sudo apt-get --purge dist-upgrade
[...]
Unpacking replacement libperl-dev ...
dpkg: error processing
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
severity 620880 serious
Bug #620880 [dpkg] --unpack: error setting timestamps of
`/usr/lib/libperl.so.dpkg-new': Function not implemented
Bug #620679 [dpkg] dpkg 1.16.0 depends on linux kernel =2.6.22
Severity set to 'serious' from 'important'
Hi!
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 23:57:39 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
He's using dselect apparently, so it's probably dpkg-query --predep which
is spitting out those warnings (it's the only dpkg-query command that
parses the available file).
Actually, there's other query
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011, Guillem Jover wrote:
The strict parser should only take effect on anything that's not the
status or the available files and --compare-versions.
Not sure I parse your sentence correctly, but
--compare-versions uses the strict parser:
$ dpkg --compare-versions foo2 eq foo2
Hi,
Guillem Jover wrote:
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 23:57:39 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
I'd be happy to work on a fix to this that fits nicely with dpkg's
design and is agreeable to people. Any hints or pointers?
Sorry, I guess I don't follow, a fix for what? We are talking about
just
19 matches
Mail list logo
