When I try to auto-detect package dependencies during packaging with my
debootstrap sysroot used for cross-compilation, I encounter an issue.
I assign the DPKG DB using the '--admindir' option, but the library paths found
by dpkg-shlibdeps are absolute paths that include my jail sy
On Thu, Oct 05, 2023 at 03:00:20PM +0900, John Crawley wrote:
> On 05/10/2023 13:15, David Wright wrote:
> > On Tue 03 Oct 2023 at 19:58:57 (-0700), Mike Castle wrote:
> > > (apt-mark showauto ; apt-mark showmanual) > apt-thinks-you-installed.txt
> > > dpkg-query --s
On 05/10/2023 13:15, David Wright wrote:
On Tue 03 Oct 2023 at 19:58:57 (-0700), Mike Castle wrote:
(apt-mark showauto ; apt-mark showmanual) > apt-thinks-you-installed.txt
dpkg-query --show --showformat='${Package}\n' | grep -v -F -f
apt-thinks-you-installed.txt > rest.txt
On Tue 03 Oct 2023 at 19:58:57 (-0700), Mike Castle wrote:
> Some tools I've been using lately are apt-mark and "dpkg-query --show".
>
> The following UNTESTED commands (ran as a normal user):
>
> (apt-mark showauto ; apt-mark showmanual) > apt-thinks-you-
On 04/10/2023 09:58, Mike Castle wrote:
The following UNTESTED commands (ran as a normal user):
(apt-mark showauto ; apt-mark showmanual) > apt-thinks-you-installed.txt
dpkg-query --show --showformat='${Package}\n' | grep -v -F
apt-thinks-you-installed.txt > rest.txt
The file &
Oops. The 'grep -v -F' should be 'grep -v -f'. Well, 'grep -v -F -f'
would probably be appropriate as well.
mrc
On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 7:58 PM Mike Castle wrote:
>
> Some tools I've been using lately are apt-mark and "dpkg-query --show".
&
Some tools I've been using lately are apt-mark and "dpkg-query --show".
The following UNTESTED commands (ran as a normal user):
(apt-mark showauto ; apt-mark showmanual) > apt-thinks-you-installed.txt
dpkg-query --show --showformat='${Package}\n' | grep -v -F
On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 11:24:04PM -0500, David Wright wrote:
[...]
> If you have complete logs and try this, presumably coming up with a
> sorted list of apt-installed packages (remembering --unique) from its
> history, and a similar list from the ' install ' lines in dpkg.log*,
> bear in mind t
ne for which I had to manually use "dpkg -i".
> > >
> > > That information is not tracked.
> > >
> > > What is tracked is "the package versions known to be available from each
> > > registered repository" and "the package ve
On 2023-10-02 at 09:52, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 09:43:39AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> On 2023-10-02 at 09:28, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, the one for which I had to manually use "dpkg -i".
>>
>> That informati
On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 09:52:39AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 09:43:39AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> > On 2023-10-02 at 09:28, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
> > > Yeah, the one for which I had to manually use "dpkg -i".
> >
> > That info
On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 09:43:39AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2023-10-02 at 09:28, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
> > Yeah, the one for which I had to manually use "dpkg -i".
>
> That information is not tracked.
>
> What is tracked is "the package vers
On 2023-10-02 at 09:28, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
> Am 02/10/2023 um 10:12 schrieb Marco M.:
>
>> That means it cannot be found in the currently enables repos.
>>
>> Do you want to list such packages
>
> Yeah, the one for which I had to manually use "dpkg -i
Am 02.10.2023 um 13:28:05 Uhr schrieb Ottavio Caruso:
> Yeah, the one for which I had to manually use "dpkg -i".
I don't know a way to only show them. Every package has the attribute
"automatically installed". Every package you manually installed doesn't
have that.
On 02/10/2023 17:05, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Before you say:
$ apt list '?narrow(?installed, ?not(?origin(Debian)))'
The problem with that is there are packages that I added from the Linux
Mint repos (not manually) and that I want to keep and they all have the
tag "local". For example:
mintme
On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 10:05:46AM +, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
> I want to upgrade Bullseye to Bookworm and I want to remove all packages
> that I installed manually, downloading the .debs
> and then using "dpkg -i".
[...]
If you're lucky, /var/log/dpkg.log in combina
Am 02.10.2023 um 10:05:46 Uhr schrieb Ottavio Caruso:
> Before you say:
>
> $ apt list '?narrow(?installed, ?not(?origin(Debian)))'
>
> The problem with that is there are packages that I added from the
> Linux Mint repos (not manually) and that I want to keep and they all
> have the tag "local".
Hello,
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 08:17:34PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 05:55:12PM -0600, William Torrez Corea wrote:
> > Setting up mysql-common (8.0.34-1debian11) ...
>
> This package did not come from Debian.
[…]
> If your third-party MySQL packages are not working, y
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 05:55:12PM -0600, William Torrez Corea wrote:
> Setting up mysql-common (8.0.34-1debian11) ...
This package did not come from Debian. That's not a Debian version
string (*none* of them have that pattern, with the literal word "debian"
in between numbers), and besides, look
*I try to update, upgrade my operating system but i get the following
error:*
Setting up mysql-common (8.0.34-1debian11) ...
update-alternatives: error: alternative path /etc/mysql/my.cnf.fallback
doesn't
exist
dpkg: error processing package mysql-common (--configure):
installed mysql-c
Darac Marjal writes:
On 10/06/2023 16:08, S M wrote:
On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 02:12:14PM +0100, Darac Marjal wrote:
Is command-line editing part of POSIX, then? Are you suggesting that dash is
missing some bit of POSIX compliance? That's possible.
Command-line editing in vi-mode is defined by
On 10/06/2023 16:08, S M wrote:
On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 02:12:14PM +0100, Darac Marjal wrote:
Is command-line editing part of POSIX, then? Are you suggesting that dash is
missing some bit of POSIX compliance? That's possible.
Command-line editing in vi-mode is defined by POSIX, but it's not m
On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 09:21:19PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> Unfortunately neither the Debian changelog of dash nor the commit
> message for this change[2] give an explanation. Removing the debconf
> handling certainly simplifies the package, and there are not too many
> scripts around that sta
On 2023-06-09 12:06 -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2023-06-09 at 12:00, Charles Curley wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 13:38:25 +
>> S M wrote:
>>
>>> I noticed on a newly installed system with Debian 12 that
>>> dpkg-reconfigure no longer allows t
On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 09:49:14AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> There's no point debating any further. S M has a unique desire, which
> is not shared by any other person I've ever heard of, and they're going
> to do what they want.
I didn't mean this to be a discussion about my particular wants
On 6/9/23 20:33, S M wrote:
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 08:00:51PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 05:45:04PM -0500, S M wrote:
Regarding a workaround, I ended up creating a symlink /usr/local/bin/sh
pointing to bash and chsh to that.
Why? Why not simply chsh to /bin/bash if
On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 02:12:14PM +0100, Darac Marjal wrote:
> Is command-line editing part of POSIX, then? Are you suggesting that dash is
> missing some bit of POSIX compliance? That's possible.
Command-line editing in vi-mode is defined by POSIX, but it's not mandatory as
far as I know.
On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 02:12:14PM +0100, Darac Marjal wrote:
> On 10/06/2023 01:32, S M wrote:
> > Yes. POSIX-compliance is a feature to me. I'd actually be fine with
> > using dash itself but the lack of command line editing and filename
> > completion is a deal-breaker to me.
> Is command-line
On 10/06/2023 01:32, S M wrote:
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 08:00:51PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 05:45:04PM -0500, S M wrote:
Regarding a workaround, I ended up creating a symlink /usr/local/bin/sh
pointing to bash and chsh to that.
Why? Why not simply chsh to /bin/bash
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 08:00:51PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 05:45:04PM -0500, S M wrote:
> > Regarding a workaround, I ended up creating a symlink /usr/local/bin/sh
> > pointing to bash and chsh to that.
>
> Why? Why not simply chsh to /bin/bash if that's what you wan
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 05:45:04PM -0500, S M wrote:
> Regarding a workaround, I ended up creating a symlink /usr/local/bin/sh
> pointing to bash and chsh to that.
Why? Why not simply chsh to /bin/bash if that's what you want as your
interactive shell?
Are you somehow relying on bash's disabling
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 04:07:03PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> Nothing you wrote here is incorrect, but none of it explains the policy
> change that has occurred. I won't even say it's a bad policy change.
> It makes at least a little bit of sense...
Yeah, I'd also like to know what was the re
on this machine
> is by running 'readlink /bin/sh'.
> * Change it by running 'dpkg-reconfigure dash'.
>
> -- Luk Claes Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:23:20 +0200
did you notice the date? that's some time ago... which
might be why it wasn't thought of
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 08:20:52PM +0200, didier gaumet wrote:
> Le 09/06/2023 à 15:38, S M a écrit :
> > I noticed on a newly installed system with Debian 12 that dpkg-reconfigure
> > no longer allows to switch the /bin/sh symlink from dash to bash. This is
> > apparently i
Le 09/06/2023 à 15:38, S M a écrit :
Good day.
I noticed on a newly installed system with Debian 12 that dpkg-reconfigure no
longer allows to switch the /bin/sh symlink from dash to bash. This is
apparently intentional as per the following:
https://launchpad.net/debian/+source/dash/0.5.11
On 2023-06-09 at 12:00, Charles Curley wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 13:38:25 +
> S M wrote:
>
>> I noticed on a newly installed system with Debian 12 that
>> dpkg-reconfigure no longer allows to switch the /bin/sh symlink from
>> dash to bash.
>
> You can
On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 13:38:25 +
S M wrote:
> I noticed on a newly installed system with Debian 12 that
> dpkg-reconfigure no longer allows to switch the /bin/sh symlink from
> dash to bash.
You can still change it manually (rm ; ln -s).
--
Does anybody read signatures any mor
has been changed to dash for
new installations. When upgrading existing installations, the
system shell will not be changed automatically.
* One can see what the current default system shell on this machine
is by running 'readlink /bin/sh'.
* Change it by running '
On Fri, Jun 09 2023 at 01:38:25 PM, S M wrote:
> Good day.
>
> I noticed on a newly installed system with Debian 12 that
> dpkg-reconfigure no longer allows to switch the /bin/sh symlink from
> dash to bash. This is apparently intentional as per the following:
>
> https:/
Good day.
I noticed on a newly installed system with Debian 12 that dpkg-reconfigure no
longer allows to switch the /bin/sh symlink from dash to bash. This is
apparently intentional as per the following:
https://launchpad.net/debian/+source/dash/0.5.11+git20210903+057cd650a4ed-4
I couldn&#
On Tue 07 Mar 2023 at 12:19:21 (+0100), Cédric Van Rompay wrote:
>
> I was looking at [the debsig-verify project](
> https://salsa.debian.org/dpkg-team/debsig-verify) and I cannot find which
> document is refered to in this part of the man pages:
>
> > This program implem
On 07/03/2023 18:19, Cédric Van Rompay wrote:
> This program implements the verification specs defined in the
document, "Package Verification with dpkg: Implementation", which is a
more complete reference for the verification procedure.
...
Any idea which document is this referi
Hi,
I was looking at [the debsig-verify project](
https://salsa.debian.org/dpkg-team/debsig-verify) and I cannot find which
document is refered to in this part of the man pages:
> This program implements the verification specs defined in the document,
"Package Verification w
On Sat, 9 Jul 2022, Tim Woodall wrote:
Hi
$ APT_CONFIG=../apt/apt.conf.buster.amd64 apt-cache policy dpkg
dpkg:
Installed: 1.20.10
Candidate: 1.20.10
Version table:
*** 1.20.10 100
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
1.19.8 500
500 http://aptmirror17.home.woodall.me.uk/local buster
Tim Woodall wrote:
> Hi
>
> $ APT_CONFIG=../apt/apt.conf.buster.amd64 apt-cache policy dpkg
> dpkg:
> Installed: 1.20.10
> Candidate: 1.20.10
> Version table:
> *** 1.20.10 100
> 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
> 1.19.8 500
> 500 http://apt
Hi
$ APT_CONFIG=../apt/apt.conf.buster.amd64 apt-cache policy dpkg
dpkg:
Installed: 1.20.10
Candidate: 1.20.10
Version table:
*** 1.20.10 100
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
1.19.8 500
500 http://aptmirror17.home.woodall.me.uk/local buster/essential amd64
Packages
Is there
Hi, the --verify option of dpkg-sig does not recognize .zst compression
of control and data files. So the verification of a signature fails,
even though the signature is okay.
The problem seems to be in this code in /usr/bin/dpkg-sig:
return "FORCE_BAD" unless ($seen_files{
o reason to
> roll back and to do it again.
>
> I just wonder why apt and dpkg are at odds and that since quite a while.
>
>
> Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > If you went from 10.10 to 11.3 - exactly what procedure did you follow?
>
> My cheat sheet was derived fro
the upgrade is completed. The W: message is the last one of the
run of
apt full-upgrade
I have a backup image of the system disk, but for now i see no reason to
roll back and to do it again.
I just wonder why apt and dpkg are at odds and that since quite a while.
Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
>
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 02:25:21PM -0600, Charles Curley wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 16:35:41 +0200
> "Thomas Schmitt" wrote:
>
> > Today i did an ugrade from 10.10 to 10.3….
>
> Did you mean from 10.10 to 11.3? 11.3 being the current version of
> Bullseye.
>
> On that assumption, texlive seem
On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 16:35:41 +0200
"Thomas Schmitt" wrote:
> Today i did an ugrade from 10.10 to 10.3….
Did you mean from 10.10 to 11.3? 11.3 being the current version of
Bullseye.
On that assumption, texlive seems to be optional on 11.3. You might try
removing it (and whatever might depend on
:
W: APT had planned for dpkg to do more than it reported back (3892 vs 3909).
Affected packages: texlive-latex-base:amd64 texlive-latex-extra:amd64
texlive-latex-recommended:amd64 texlive-pictures:amd64
Has the reason for this message meanwhile be found out ?
The web is full of it. But
David Wright wrote:
> On Mon 21 Mar 2022 at 15:07:45 (+), Dr. Alex Sheppard wrote:
> > On 21/03/2022 14:02, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > > Dr. Alex Sheppard wrote:
> > So, unless anyone can explain otherwise, I think there is a bug to
> > report against unattended-upgrades.
>
> Perhaps. But I'd avoi
one of them and thereby breaking DNS on a
> > > client's network.
> > >
> > > Is this a bug in unattended upgrades, or a bug in apt or dpkg? Here
> > > is
> > > an extract from my unattended-upgrades.log to illustrate.
It might help to chec
ug in apt or dpkg? Here is
an extract from my unattended-upgrades.log to illustrate.
FTR: I'm struggling to think how bind9 could have been installed as a
dependency for something else on the machine in question. I am pretty sure I
would have installed it manually which gives extra surp
Dr. Alex Sheppard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Unattended upgrades ended up removing some of the packages it was was
> going to upgrade ... bind9 being one of them and thereby breaking DNS on a
> client's network.
>
> Is this a bug in unattended upgrades, or a bug in
Hi,
Unattended upgrades ended up removing some of the packages it was
was going to upgrade ... bind9 being one of them and thereby breaking
DNS on a client's network.
Is this a bug in unattended upgrades, or a bug in apt or dpkg? Here
is an extract from my unattended-upgrades.l
-amd64 x86_64 bits: 64 Desktop: Trinity
> >> Distro: Debian GNU/Linux bookworm/sid
> >> # dpkg --configure linux-image-5.15.0-3-amd64
> >> Setting up linux-image-5.15.0-3-amd64 (5.15.15-2) ...
> >> /etc/kernel/postinst.d/initramfs-tools:
> >> update-initramfs: Gene
On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 11:09:40PM -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
> mv: cannot move '/boot/initrd.img-5.15.0-3-amd64.new' to
> '/boot/initrd.img-5.15.0-3-amd64': Operation not permitted
> What can be done to make dpkg stop trying to replace the initrd that I have
> m
David Wright composed on 2022-02-09 23:36 (UTC-0600):
> On Wed 09 Feb 2022 at 23:09:40 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote:
>> # inxi -S
>> System:
>> Host: ab560 Kernel: 5.15.0-3-amd64 x86_64 bits: 64 Desktop: Trinity
>> Distro: Debian GNU/Linux bookworm/sid
>&g
On Wed 09 Feb 2022 at 23:09:40 (-0500), Felix Miata wrote:
> # inxi -S
> System:
> Host: ab560 Kernel: 5.15.0-3-amd64 x86_64 bits: 64 Desktop: Trinity
> Distro: Debian GNU/Linux bookworm/sid
> # dpkg --configure linux-image-5.15.0-3-amd64
> Setting up linux-image-5.15.0-
# inxi -S
System:
Host: ab560 Kernel: 5.15.0-3-amd64 x86_64 bits: 64 Desktop: Trinity
Distro: Debian GNU/Linux bookworm/sid
# dpkg --configure linux-image-5.15.0-3-amd64
Setting up linux-image-5.15.0-3-amd64 (5.15.15-2) ...
/etc/kernel/postinst.d/initramfs-tools:
update-initramfs: Generating
On Sun, Feb 6, 2022 at 7:13 PM Dennis Wicks wrote:
>
> I can't install/upgrade because I get the message
>
> > E: dpkg was interrupted, you must manually run 'sudo dpkg --configure -a'
> > to correct the problem.
>
> When I run the dpkg command I get one
I can't install/upgrade because I get the message
E: dpkg was interrupted, you must manually run 'sudo dpkg --configure -a' to
correct the problem.
When I run the dpkg command I get one message
Setting up linux-image-4.19.0-18-amd64 (4.19.208-1)
then within a few sec
On Tue 26 Oct 2021 at 19:11:50 (+0100), Brian wrote:
> Assuming that Ctrl-C while dpkg or apt is running is equivalent to a
> power outage, I have found that running the specific command afterwards
> is generally successful.
And it might be worth adding that if apt is downloading a larg
On Tue 26 Oct 2021 at 13:57:13 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:31:54AM -0700, Han wrote:
> >Hi,
> >This might be a dumb question: is dpkg installing (or updating) a
> > package
> >using a .deb file atomic in the event of powe
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:31:54AM -0700, Han wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This might be a dumb question: is dpkg installing (or updating) a package
> using a .deb file atomic in the event of power outage?
>
> By atomic, I meant either the new version of the application is fully
> ins
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:31:54AM -0700, Han wrote:
>Hi,
>This might be a dumb question: is dpkg installing (or updating) a package
>using a .deb file atomic in the event of power outage?
>By atomic, I meant either the new version of the application is fully
>
Hi,
This might be a dumb question: is dpkg installing (or updating) a package
using a .deb file atomic in the event of power outage?
By atomic, I meant either the new version of the application is fully
installed, or not at all. Is this always guaranteed?
I read the `man dpkg` doc, but
On 7/18/21 4:53 PM, w...@mgssub.com wrote:
When dpkg tries to build a new initrd
my system crashes. how can I stop dpkg from trying to build a new initrd so I
can do some other apt things to fix my system?
Many TIA!!!
Dennis
Can you manually build a new initrd?
Why does dpkg try to
On Sun 18 Jul 2021 at 16:53:37 (-0700), w...@mgssub.com wrote:
> When dpkg tries to build a new initrd my system
> crashes. how can I stop dpkg from trying to build a new initrd so I can do
> some other apt things to fix my system?
Try setting update_initramfs=no in
/etc/initra
When dpkg tries to build a new initrd my system crashes. how can I stop dpkg from trying to build a new initrd so I can do some other apt things to fix my system?Many TIA!!!Dennis
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 4:22 PM Brian wrote:
> On Tue 15 Jun 2021 at 14:34:12 +0530, Jaikumar Sharma wrote:
> I wonder whether using dpkg-divert(1) would help in preserving your
> modified file?
>
> Yes, this option was intentionally avoided by me because of scripting the
mainta
omatic upgrades but
> it is still giving me the prompt even after specifying on command line :
>
> sudo apt-get dist-upgrade -o Dpkg::Options::=--force-confdef -o
> Dpkg::Options::=--force-confold -y --allow-unauthenticated
>
> Still prompt/complain about locally modified conf
out prompting during automatic upgrades but it is
> still giving me the prompt even after specifying on command line :
>
> sudo apt-get dist-upgrade -o Dpkg::Options::=--force-confdef -o
> Dpkg::Options::=--force-confold -y --allow-unauthenticated
>
> Still prompt/complain about l
c upgrades but
> it is still giving me the prompt even after specifying on command line :
>
> sudo apt-get dist-upgrade -o Dpkg::Options::=--force-confdef -o
> Dpkg::Options::=--force-confold -y --allow-unauthenticated
>
> Still prompt/complain about locally modified configuration
line :
sudo apt-get dist-upgrade -o Dpkg::Options::=--force-confdef -o
Dpkg::Options::=--force-confold -y --allow-unauthenticated
Still prompt/complain about locally modified configuration file, as per
documentation it should work.
and
I've also tried to put these below command in a config
> hobie of RMN wrote:
>> Restating: I've installed the *.deb of Squirrelmail 1.4.23 SVN but don['t
>> see where to direct the browser in order to engage with it. Anyone
know...?
> The package should contain a configuration making it available via
http(s)://server.name/squirrelmail
> But how and i
hobie of RMN wrote:
> Restating: I've installed the *.deb of Squirrelmail 1.4.23 SVN but don['t
> see where to direct the browser in order to engage with it. Anyone
> know...?
The package should contain a configuration making it available via
http(s)://server.name/squirrelmail
But how and if t
> hobie of RMN wrote:
>
>> I have a server running Jessie (oldoldstable) that has had
>> Squirrelmail 1.4.2 (installed manually) on it for a very long time.
>> At some point, years ago, SM became confused by a change in
>> charactersets (UTC-8, is it?), leading to erratic dropping of lines of
>> t
hobie of RMN wrote:
> I have a server running Jessie (oldoldstable) that has had
> Squirrelmail 1.4.2 (installed manually) on it for a very long time.
> At some point, years ago, SM became confused by a change in
> charactersets (UTC-8, is it?), leading to erratic dropping of lines of
> text. I'
I have a server running Jessie (oldoldstable) that has had Squirrelmail
1.4.2 (installed manually) on it for a very long time. At some point,
years ago, SM became confused by a change in charactersets (UTC-8, is
it?), leading to erratic dropping of lines of text. I've just installed
SM 1.4.3 from
> Selecting previously unselected package exim4-config.
> dpkg: unrecoverable fatal error, aborting:
> files list file for package 'libqt5script5:i386' is missing final newline
> E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned error code (2)
>
> Any suggestions to fix this? Asid
More about wicd later. This is a more immediate problem.
An attempt to install a package begins as expected.
For example apt-get install exim4 retrieves exim4-base and
etc. Then preconfigures.
Then this.
Selecting previously unselected package exim4-config.
dpkg: unrecoverable fatal error
On 9/12/20 12:29 AM, Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2020-09-11 22:03 -0700, Marc Shapiro wrote:
Is there any option to have 'dpkg --get-selections' NOT include
automatically installed packages?
No, dpkg has no notion of automatically installed packages, that is an
apt concept.
Othe
I do this job using aptitude instead apt:
/usr/bin/aptitude search '~i !~M' -F '%p' --disable-columns
Toni Mas
Missatge de Sven Joachim del dia ds., 12 de set.
2020 a les 9:29:
>
> On 2020-09-11 22:03 -0700, Marc Shapiro wrote:
>
> > Is there any option
On 2020-09-11 22:03 -0700, Marc Shapiro wrote:
> Is there any option to have 'dpkg --get-selections' NOT include
> automatically installed packages?
No, dpkg has no notion of automatically installed packages, that is an
apt concept.
> Otherwise, all packages show as
Is there any option to have 'dpkg --get-selections' NOT include
automatically installed packages? Otherwise, all packages show as
manually installed, including those that would otherwise have been
automatically installed.
Marc
Sven Joachim wrote:
...
> It's up to you. If the message comes up again, I would report it, but
> probably not at the first incident.
i also saw it this morning, but since this is testing and
texlive seems to get frequent changes i decided to ignore it
since i am not a heavy user of that packag
Il 29/04/20 17:36, Sven Joachim ha scritto:
Unless there are good reasons to report it, I'd say I can let it drop,
right?
It's up to you. If the message comes up again, I would report it, but
probably not at the first incident.
I think it's the first time I ever saw it in years, I'll report
On 2020-04-29 13:25 +0200, Andrea Borgia wrote:
> Hi.
>
> testing/unstable system here, just did an upgrade and I got the
> following message:
>
> W: APT had planned for dpkg to do more than it reported back (372 vs 389).
>Affected packages: texlive-latex-base:amd
Hi.
testing/unstable system here, just did an upgrade and I got the
following message:
W: APT had planned for dpkg to do more than it reported back (372 vs 389).
Affected packages: texlive-latex-base:amd64
texlive-latex-extra:amd64 texlive-latex-recommended:amd64
texlive-pictures:amd64
I might have fixed this by simply running:
dpkg --configure -a
My highest priority was to be able to install mycustompackage.deb. I'm a
bit less concerned if I'm slightly behind on qmail versions (or a few other
packages).
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 2:54 PM Marco Shaw wrote:
> (I&
y. This
is probably not immediately relevant to your problem. Probably.
> # dpkg -i /tmp/mycustompackage_i386.deb
> Selecting previously unselected package mycustompackage.
One has to wonder whether this package is even properly built.
> dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuratio
qmail and snmpd that are showing errors. Ended
up with a "dpkg error 1".
3. Tried to install mycustompackage and see the above error.
4. Tried a apt-get install/dist-upgrade to see if it helps any to help me
figure out the problem.
Also in my chroot:
# dpkg -i /tmp/mycustompackag
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 02:54:18PM -0400, Marco Shaw wrote:
> # apt-get install qmail
[...]
> Can not write log, openpty() failed (/dev/pts not mounted?)
Not reassuring. Is this a real computer? Or even a real virtual
machine? If it's some kind of container, well... good luck with that.
> Upgr
should upgrade, but bear with me)
I'm in a bit of a pickle. I tried to upgrade a chroot'ed environment and it
seems I broke dpkg in the process.
I don't know if the cause of the problems is that apt-get isn't able to
handle a qmail upgrade or if it's something else (it seem
Quoting David Wright (2019-07-16 19:41:17)
> On Sat 11 May 2019 at 01:22:09 (+0200), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > Den 2019-05-10 kl. 18:21, skrev David Wright:
> > > > For example, I append lines to /etc/console-setup/remap.inc to
> > > > do things like enhancing the navigation keys, and preventi
gt; >> why the "Keyboard model" has to be set before "Keyboard layout" when
> >> walking through the dpkg-reconfigure menues?
> >>
> >> If it was the other way around, the first choice, "Keyboard layout",
> >> could perhaps
n: I'd like to know
>> why the "Keyboard model" has to be set before "Keyboard layout" when
>> walking through the dpkg-reconfigure menues?
>>
>> If it was the other way around, the first choice, "Keyboard layout",
>> could perhaps make
1 - 100 of 3939 matches
Mail list logo
