On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If by "dpkg 2.0" you mean "rewritten dpkg and dpkg-dev", it doesn't. There
> is no chance that a package management system that hasn't seen the light
> of day, let alone reached beta test, will be ready for release in four
> months, let alone one.
Just
tag 299699 - patch
thanks
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> the latest version of gcc-4.0 is even more restrictive than the previous
> ones. There is a new error message 'array type has incomplete element type'
> for constructs like 'extern struct st x[];' when 'struct st' has not
> b
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Adam wrote that this is because of a parser error, that is not true, the
> parser is fine. dpkg simply doesn't support per-arch dependencies.
Correct, dpkg itself doesn't support it.
>
> > So there are three possibilities:
> >
> > * dpkg 1.10.11
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, [iso-8859-15] Jérôme Marant wrote:
> - I had problems downgrading dpkg to the unstable version because
> of the md5sum* diversions. I noticed that in the
> /var/lib/dpkg/diversions file, "coreutils" had been replaced
> by the ':' character. I suspect it did happen during
On Mon, 23 May 2005, Martin-Eric Racine wrote:
> Package: dpkg-dev
> Version: 1.10.27
> Followup-For: Bug #159642
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Btw, the "Enhances" field indeed is a part of the Policy Manual (version
> 3.6.1.1 Sarge) at sections 5.6.9 and 7.2, so
> it de
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Joey Hess wrote:
> d-i currently suffers from a mess involving the library dependencies of
> udebs. Most library udebs have different names than their corresponding
> deb, for example, libc6-udeb, but since the udebs that should depend on
> them are built on regular Debian sys
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Eddy Petrisor wrote:
> On 8/3/05, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 05:10:38PM +0300, Eddy Petrisor wrote:
> > [...]
> > > 3) in some cases the messages are so cryptical that rephrasing them would
> > > be a
> > > much better solution than ad
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Eddy Petrisor wrote:
> On 8/17/05, Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Eddy Petrisor wrote:
> >
> > > On 8/3/05, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 05:10:38PM +0300
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> We won't be seeing anything like that while I'm maintainer.
Like dpkg hasn't switched maintainers before.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t extract into - directly.
So, I decided to do something about that finally. Below is an example dsc
format that I have come up with.
===
Source: xawtv
Format: 2.0
Version: 3.07-2
Binary: xawtv, fbtv, radio, streamer, webcam, xawtv-tools
Maintainer: Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Architecture: a
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Adam Heath wrote:
>
> > You'll note the addition of 3 fields(Format, Patches, and Tarballs), and the
> > different files specified for the files field. The existance of a Format
>
> Having
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Adam Heath wrote:
> > However, it has its drawbacks, the 2 most glaring that it hides the
> > source in subtrees, all packed up, and that it doesn't extract into
> > - directly.
>
> You conveniently ignore
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 12:34:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It changed the symlink to a dir, and broke my system.
Granted, this is easy to fix, but this is very bad.
tar's behavior is needed to avoid a security bug where an intruder
plants a symbolic l
) supports 'excludes' that are used during the patch
generation. Maybe we need something like that for this.
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-----END GEEK C
GIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C
+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG
-END PGP INFO-
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Adam Heath wrote:
> > Is this created in debian/control by the maintainer, or should it be
> > inserted
> > at package build time by an automated tool? Indeed, couldn't all fields be
> > inserted at packa
w uses the freshly built dpkg binaries and scripts
to build itself. You don't have to hand install dpkg to build dpkg
now.
-- Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 10 Nov 2000 02:14:32 -0600
I built 1.7.1.2 dpkg debs, using dpkg itself, so I'm fairly sure the last item
ab
-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG
-END PGP INFO-
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Adam Heath wrote:
> package: lintian
> severity: normal
>
> I believe the above E: is wrong, as dpkg is an essential package.
btw, this is bug #76690
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG
-END PGP INFO-
On Sat, 11 Nov 2000, Adam Heath wrote:
> (Sorry, don't have a patch for this yet, I'll generate a combined one later
> today, after I wake up).
>
> In dpkg-deb/extract.c, there is a copy loop, that reads data from the .deb ar,
> and writes it to a pipe(this is done i
the main pipelines.
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67
END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO----
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG
-END PGP INFO-
mem is hurtfull.
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA
gDPkgPM=true
I did man apt-get, it refered me to apt.conf(5)
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PR
On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Apt has some debug settings that will show you the dpkg command line,
> > > IIRC.
> > >
> >
> > joey and I could not
der, instead of
having apt do it, I get no segfault.
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ge your currently building that hasn't
> been installed yet. dpkg-shlibdeps should look at shlibs.local for libraries
> that it can't find on the system, but it does not do this.
Use dpkg-dev 1.7.2(1.7.0 and 1.7.1 had minor problems). They no longer use
ldd, but instead use objdum
his may be a bug in libc6 2.1.3-13 that came with potato, but I don't feel
like debugging that.
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
B
5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG
-END PGP INFO-
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000, Adam Heath wrote:
> before=0m6.489s, after=0m4.385s
Those times are actually from a loop of 10, so dpkg isn't really that slow.
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG
-END PGP INFO-
ded.
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB
There are 2 things going on, and both are needed.
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
to gain a
speedup.
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
==
yakko:/etc/init.d# cat /tmp/cmds
--unpack /var/cache/apt/archives/jx-lib_1.5.3-3_i386.deb
--purge jx-lib
--unpack /var/cache/apt/archives/jx-lib_1.5.3-3_i386.deb
--configure jx-lib
--purge jx-lib
yakko:/etc/init.d# time dpkg --command-pipe 4 4Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E
On Mon, 1 Jan 2001, Adam Heath wrote:
> [snip]
I have tested -L, -s, plus the options listed in the above transcript. Others
are left to be tested. --unpack(used with --install) had some side affects,
which are fixed in the below patch.
==
Index: main/archive
On Mon, 1 Jan 2001, Adam Heath wrote:
> ==
> yakko:/etc/init.d# cat /tmp/cmds
> [snip]
> yakko:/etc/init.d# time (cat /tmp/cmds|while read cmd;do dpkg $cmd;done)
> [snip]
apt-get upgrade -y -o Debug::pkgDPkgPM=true
Then, I saved the list of dpkg commands to a file, and ran it
On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jan 2001, Adam Heath wrote:
>
> > ==
> > yakko:/etc/init.d# cat /tmp/cmds
> > [snip]
> > yakko:/etc/init.d# time (cat /tmp/cmds|while read cmd;do dpkg $cmd;done)
> > [snip]
>
> apt-get upgrade -y -o De
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG
-END PGP INFO-
BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG
-END PGP INFO-
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> > Dpkg no longer builds on powerpc. The code at fault is in
> > lib/varbuf.c, and looks something like this:
> >
> > void varbufvprintf(struct varbuf *v, const char *fmt,
an you
give any more details, so that I can try to track it down?
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMA
->proc(read_data, buf, bufsize, desc);
if (bytesread<0) {
if (errno==EINTR) continue;
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGI
This isn't saying I
know what is wrong tho.
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
----BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG
-END PGP INFO-
ince 1.7.2.
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
----BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG
-END PGP INFO-
12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
----BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
p the ship.
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01
27;t go into a released version.
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO----
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Pr
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Adam Heath writes ("dpkg --smallmem has a larger footprint than --largemem"):
> > So, in summary, dpkg will detect that it is on a low memory system,
> > but end up using more memory(this amount is equal to du *.list).
>
>
L P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888 F587 F
GP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
----BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG
-END PGP INFO-
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Jody McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 03:53:46PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
>
> > I see no reason for this to be in base-line dpkg. If these other locations
> > want to have this feature, then why can't these other locations develop the
> &
K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG
-END PGP INFO-
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 07:19:23PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Kenneth Lett wrote:
> > > Merging Available information
> > > E: read, still have 1 to read but none left
> > >
>
> I had t
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 07:19:23PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> > > On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Kenneth Lett wrote:
> > > > Merging Available information
> > > >
EGIN PGP INFO----
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG
-END PGP INFO-
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
> I've been running (testing's) dpkg on a low memory 486/33 a lot lately.
> Poor me. Anyway, it seems to take dpkg about 5 minutes to print
> *anything*, then in relatively short order, it reads the database, and
> is off to installing the package.
>
> I strac
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
> I've been running (testing's) dpkg on a low memory 486/33 a lot lately.
> Poor me. Anyway, it seems to take dpkg about 5 minutes to print
> *anything*, then in relatively short order, it reads the database, and
> is off to installing the package.
Also, on l
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Marcus wrote:
> dpkg: error processing telnetd (--remove):
> unable to delete control info file
> `/var/lib/dpkg/info/telnetd.postinst': Operation not permitted
Is /var nfs mounted, and root is being squashed to nobody?
> mastereve:/var/lib/dpkg/info# ls -la telnetd.postins
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Looks like dpkg 1.9.0 as currently in CVS isn't quite there yet, it
> still segfaults, and the problem is still the same.
>
> Some gdb output:
> [snip]
> Which clearly shows that dpkg still manages to write the filelist
> in the wrong place in memory.
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 12:23:37AM -0700, David Whedon wrote:
> > dbootstrap attempts to execute /target/bin/superformat. debootstrap has not
> > installed the package fdutils where superformat would be found. One of the
> > following is probably a good
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 03:14:17AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 May 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Anyway, debootstrap 0.1.7 is in incoming now, fixing this and a handful
> > > of other bugs. It kind-of works wi
On Sat, 5 May 2001, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> Richard Kettlewell writes:
> > On 10 Mar 2001, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>
> >> I still can't reproduce it. Perhaps there is some other
> >> difference. I'll give up trying to reproduce it for now.
> >>
> >> Do you have any other information about
On Fri, 4 May 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
> I thought this was fixed in 1.4?
I assume you mean the dpkg 1.9 series. And no, this is a different dependtry
bug.
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > > dpkg: /home/doogie/debian/mine/dpkg/v1_9/dpkg-1.9.4/main/packages.c:191:
> > > process_queue: Assertion `dependtry <= 4' failed.
> > > E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg exited unexpectedly
>
> I have a reproducable
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> [snip] I'll comment more on the above later when I have more time
>
> I intend for ia64 to be released stable with woody. I would love for the ia32
> user space "problem" to be resolved cleanly by then, but I'm not expecting
> miracles. If I have to hack
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Brad Pfautsch wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am running Debian 2.2r2 on a i386 machine. When I came into work
> yesterday, I was going to update some packages. I kept getting errors
> when trying to use dpkg stated "/var/lib/dpkg/status file or directory
> not found". I did a cd /va
As many have probably noticed, dpkg-dev 1.9.11 thru 1.9.12(and .13 which is
waiting in cvs) have been stumbling upon 'errors' with source package
extraction. The cause of this, was a patch to 1.9.11, that enabled previously
disabled sanity checking.
Some of these checks are too strict. Some are
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Adam Heath wrote:
> [snip]
Well, my script is done. Here are the stats:
726 have 'bad' source. 4361 are good, with 5087 total. This gives
14.27167289% as being bad(using the dpkg-source that exists in the v1_9 branch
of cvs).
Below you will find the lis
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 21-Jun-01, 10:52 (CDT), Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Problems discovered so far:
> >
> > * tarball contains leading './'
>
> Why is this a problem? I mean, I see that dpkg-source g
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
> [snip]
Comments on the above will wait, until I try it.
> see shy jo, preparing escape routes in case he is asked to maintain dselect
How about rewriting it instead?
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Alexey Mahotkin wrote:
> > I would like to discuss the proposal of splitting gettextable messages
> > in dpkg in lesser chunks, probably of string or couple of strings in
> > length.
>
> This comes up on occasion and I always refuse for a s
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Isn't there something in policy about willy nilly adding pre-depends
> without consulting some list?
Section 7.2 talks about dependency relations, and just says to use pre-depends
sparingly. It doesn't mention asking a list first.
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Steve Greenland wrote:
> A standalone .deb w/o a Package file doesn't integrate into apt or
> dselect, so there's no where to show the descriptions. The only reason
> one would have an interest in such a .deb is that one already has a
> pretty good idea of what it is, presumab
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Michael Bramer wrote:
> > Adam, who is a dpkg developer.
>
> Ok, But why the dpkg so quiet?
No one sees a need? We all have to split our time different ways, and the
current developers/authors/programmers don't see it as useful.
If someone were to develope a patch, test it,
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Michael Bramer wrote:
> > A proper solution, at the very least, invovles storing the data in the
> > foo.deb{control.tar.gz/control} file.
>
> gettext is not a hack. Gettext for translations and dpkg use gettext
> is self for translation. Why re-inventing the wheel?
gettext ca
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Nick Phillips wrote:
> > Well, shouldn't it? Wouldn't it make sense to have the translated
> > description
> > in there rather than the original one?
>
> I actually makes more sense to remove even the english description
> from status to an
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, VALETTE Eric wrote:
> Now I just would like to be able to install automatically this packages
> set using predefined answer value to configuration question. This is the
> only missing item. I'm very frustrated no be able to call either dpkg -i
> or dpkg-reconfigure using prede
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> > > Why, oh WHY do i have to do things manually when the computer used for
> > > running programs could easily do such trivial things by itself?
> >
> > Complain to [EMAIL PROTECTED], not debian-dpkg.
>
!r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG
-END PGP INFO-
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> > Which is why there is a command-pipe feature as well.
>
> Oh? Last I was told that was too difficult for you guys to do or something
> like that.
It's not. Just ignore what Ian said.
> vore{jgg}~#dp
On 3 Oct 2001, Paul Seelig wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wichert Akkerman) writes:
>
> > Previously Paul Seelig wrote:
> > > Why, oh WHY do i have to do things manually when the computer used for
> > > running programs could easily do such trivial things by itself?
> >
> > Complain to [EMAIL PROTECT
On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Colin Watson wrote:
> It happens frequently if you hit Ctrl-C during an install (perhaps
> because you realize you've done something wrong, or because some package
> has gone haywire), even when there are no other error conditions like
> the disk being full. I initially thought
ages can't own files, so you can't replace them. This is not a bug in
dpkg, but in what you are trying to do.
Additionally, passing -B(--auto-deconfigure) may be needed.
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP+
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, Christoph Pfisterer wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > While trying to set up a group of packages to be mutually-exclusive,
> > I've come across what I think is a bug in dpkg. First, some
> > background:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, Adam Heath wrote:
> Ah, I see the patch. Looking it over now(some of this makes sense, and I'll
> apply it to HEAD).
Wichert: Should some of these be applied to the v1_9 branch, or just to HEAD?
I've interspersed my comments into the patch, between files
eant to
smooth upgrades, when a file has moved between packages, and you can't remove
the older package.
BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK--
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Christoph Pfisterer wrote:
> This whole FIX_PERCENT_ZI thing is there because Darwin's libc
> doesn't support %zi in *printf and *scanf. The macro and the
> associated function was the only fix I could come up with that:
>
> 1) Fixes the problem on Darwin
> 2) Doesn't add
On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> I just fixed a couple of segfaults in vim due to different printf
> format strings in original and translated strings and decided to
> check dpkg for that as well, and it turned out there were a few dozen
> wrong translations in dpkg as well.
Could s
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > Adam Heath wrote:
> > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
> > >
> > > > /usr/info has dir, dir.old and one other info page.
> > >
> > > dpkg 1.10
On 3 Dec 2001, James Troup wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It would seem the MD5sum problems are not fully resolved... (the
> chroot in question is recently built and updated semi-regularly, it's
> certainly running 1.9.18, before anyone suggests the obvious). I
> wasn't able to reproduce this and I haven't see
ion: 3.12
GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B0
c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS--
PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z?
-END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
BEGIN PGP INFO
Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Finger Print | KeyID
67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP
AD46 C88
On Tue, 1 Jan 2002, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously YAEGASHI Takeshi wrote:
> > Thanks for quick response. But don't you forget this one?
>
> Oops, indeed I did. it's in CVS now.
>
> > And, do you mean that the next dpkg release is to be 1.10?
>
> Unless a nasty bug is discovered in 1.9, yes
On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, YAEGASHI Takeshi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When perl executable is not in the standard path (/usr/local/bin/perl,
> for instance), it generates perl scripts with the corresponding header
> and results in undistributable debs.
Of course, this is as designed. This is not a bug.
> I und
1 - 100 of 401 matches
Mail list logo
