Raphael Manfredi wrote:
> I wrote a little perl script to do the conversion. God bless you for
> using a text file for the database and not some binary format:
>
> ---
> #!/usr/bin/perl
>
> use strict;
>
> my @lines;
> my $seen_arch = 0;
>
> while (<>) {
> push (@lin
found 620958 dpkg/1.16.1.2
quit
Hi Raphael,
Raphael Manfredi wrote:
> dpkg-query: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 1682
> package 'sudo':
> missing architecture
>
> What do I need to do to fix these warnings
Reinstalling "sudo" (and any other packages that have the missi
Hello 'dpkg' users,
Same problem here, because my Debian system has been going (upgraded
regularly) since the late '90s. It turns out 'sed' can fix this, the
code is nigh unreadable but it works.
Anyway, from the command prompt (copy & paste should work):
# the problem file
I=/v
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 08:46:40AM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> My recommendation is that you provide a post-install that checks the
> syntax of /var/lib/dpkg/status|available and fixes the files.
To make your life easier, I tared up my entire /var/lib/dpkg
if you want to see what an old DB looks l
Raphael,
No offense, but I went through the entire bug, tried the ruby script
which did not work reliably (added duplicate architecture lines and
forgot some), and then I spent >1h trying to fix the file by hand, and
the more errors I fixed, the more dpkg --list would report more a few at
a time.
Hi -
I use Debian specifically because it upgrades cleanly from antiquity.
I've never reinstalled Debian from scratch except when buying all-new
hardware, and usually not even then. I had a computer from Debian
0.93rc6 to woody, and several others from woody to present day.
So this problem affec
In the interest of considering all possibilities,
it seems to me that it might also be possible to
a.) make issuing these warnings configurable, or
b.) back them out altogether.
Thanks,
Kingsley
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
Hi,
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> The easiest solution for now is to purge the packages in config-files
> status.
>
> sudo aptitude purge ~c
>
> Make sure you don't need to keep the configuration of the affected
> packages though. And for the other affected packages you should just
> reinstall them.
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011, Kingsley G. Morse Jr. wrote:
> If it's OK for every entry in /var/lib/dpkg/status
> to end up having an "Architecture: " line, then
> how would one know whether to specify an
> architecture of
>
> "all"
>
> or (in my case)
>
> "i386"?
The easiest solution for
If it's OK for every entry in /var/lib/dpkg/status
to end up having an "Architecture: " line, then
how would one know whether to specify an
architecture of
"all"
or (in my case)
"i386"?
Thanks,
Kingsley
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
wi
dpkg has been an enormous time saver for me over
the years.
Thank you very much for maintaining it.
Unfortunately, I ran into this bug too.
At least for me, the above ruby script only fixed
a small fraction of /var/lib/dpkg/status.
I'm considering various fixes.
Would it be OK if every entry i
Just created a fast dirty fix:
- Copy the output warnings (all the "parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status'
near line XXX" lines) in a file named "/tmp/warnings"
- Copy the code below in a file named "repair_status.rb"
- In the code replace "Architecture: i386" for your architecture line
- Run "ruby re
Hi I just purged over 2000 old packages, about 600 of them generated the
"missing arch" warning for every dpkg run which was annoying to say the
least.
Obviously it was not an alternative to do the cleaning manually.
I also found 5 packages which were properly installed but also generated
warnings
I fixed the problem by manually editing /var/lib/dpkg/status and adding the
architecture field...
Thanks for the bug reports ... it was very annoying! :)
At some point, my HDD got full and I tought it was simply corrupted but it
wasn't!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dang
I manually edited /var/lib/dpkg/status to add architecture to the packages
where it was missing. Everything's working fine now! :)
Thank you for the bug report!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
found 620958 1.16.0.3
thanks
On 2011-04-16 09:09:43 -0700, D. Kelly wrote:
> You can include me in the number of users who is now being spammed by
> all the warnings. I managed to get rid of quite a few of them with
> "dpkg --clear-avail"
> but I still get all the status ones. For example:
Me
Found: 1.16.0.2
What about --list-stale-entries and --purge-stale-entries ? :) [or
just the latter with the compulsory "are you sure man?"]
g
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
You can include me in the number of users who is now being spammed by
all the warnings. I managed to get rid of quite a few of them with
"dpkg --clear-avail"
but I still get all the status ones. For example:
dpkg-query: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 705
package 'linux-i
Hi!
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 08:04:58 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > Would it be possible in the long term for dpkg to stop caring about
> > "available" altogether (leaving it to dselect)?
>
> Yes, it's more or less the plan. We've just changed dpkg t
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > 2/ We can't invent the value to put in Architecture
>
> It seems likely this has been covered before, but just in case: why
> not put in the native architecture for already-installed, ancient
> packages?
It could be Architecture: all instead of the
Hi,
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> 1/ It concerns packages which have not been touched since 2004 or packages
> which were installed before 2004 and got removed but not purged since then
I did say "ideally". I can understand if you're not motivated to work
on it.
(That said, iiuc the above is not so
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> I am not Guillem :) but I think the ideal thing would be a way for the
> user to (perhaps explicitly) update the status db by inserting an
> architecture.
Why ?
1/ It concerns packages which have not been touched since 2004 or packages
which were inst
Hi,
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> The change is very old, not many users will be affected by this.
>
> Guillem, what do you think? Should we silence the warning due to this?
I am not Guillem :) but I think the ideal thing would be a way for the
user to (perhaps explicitly) update the status db by ins
Hello,
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011, Sven-Haegar Koch wrote:
> Package: libmimelib1
> Status: deinstall ok config-files
I did some code archeology to try to find out an explanation of why dpkg
would have dropped that field.
And I found it: http://bugs.debian.org/228253
It got "fixed" by this commit:
c
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, 05 Apr 2011, Sven-Haegar Koch wrote:
> > aurora:~# dpkg -l
> > dpkg-query: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 301
> > package 'libmimelib1':
> > missing architecture
> [...]
> > These seem all to only affect pac
Hello,
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011, Sven-Haegar Koch wrote:
> aurora:~# dpkg -l
> dpkg-query: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 301
> package 'libmimelib1':
> missing architecture
[...]
> These seem all to only affect packages long removed, but not purged.
Can you show us the entry
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.16.0.1
Severity: normal
Since the 1.16.0 update dpkg outputs a ton of new warning messages for each
run (multiple times for one apt-get dist-upgrade).
Example:
aurora:~# dpkg -l
dpkg-query: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 301 package
'libmimelib1
27 matches
Mail list logo
