eaningful
details based on severity.
For all we know, as we know nothing, apt/oldstable has that problem, too,
(assuming of course its an apt problem to begin with) making that even
more ironic.
But it makes you feel better and I don't really care, so its fine.
I was indeed just giving you a hint for next time on another package
to include a justification rather than treat it as "obviously so".
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
you adding another architecture since the last update
but before the next mirror change).
> severity 1078608 serious
Not that it makes any practical difference in the apt team if you tag
it wishlist or critical, but I am curious: Which section in the Debian
policy is apt violating here? Or
Control: tag -1 pending
Hello,
Bug #1093254 in apt reported by you has been fixed in the
Git repository and is awaiting an upload. You can see the commit
message below and you can check the diff of the fix at:
https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt/-/commit/4454fd246b3b7f605dcd272b2107313ba53688c
Depends" – note the missing dash.
I didn't notice until now…
Patch with test incoming, so the bot will hopefully comment soon
and I save myself from attaching the patch ~ I am just mailing ahead
to fix the versions in the BTS.
Days since I last broke Debian: 0
Best regards
David Kal
Control: tag -1 pending
Hello,
Bug #1092090 in apt reported by you has been fixed in the
Git repository and is awaiting an upload. You can see the commit
message below and you can check the diff of the fix at:
https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt/-/commit/eb1adc417b0f3c626c545d195e900d1369c751f
but in a more
source-orientated (AUR stuff is built on user-systems, right?) this
might be more of a factor, maybe?
At least I assume that both "failures" are a red herring and the actual
problem causing them is deeper and more related to how Arch is setup.
Hence my interest in chr
that just hits confirm after the REMOVE section is done (in
old order – now we know why it was given first 😉), so they have to wait
now for the prompt, but… oh well, --no-remove --assume-yes could work
for this straw man user instead I guess (https://xkcd.com/1172/).
MR on salsa: htt
exist) so that
we have to help them by generating work for many people and potentially
new upgrade problems for everyone – or if we declare them, existing or
not, a non-issue at least for the upgrade to trixie.
And on a sidenote: I would advise to reconsider interacting with dpkg
too casually – but luck is probably on your side in any case.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
able is known to exhibit the
required setup).
(I will write another mail in another subthread about the finer details
of what interacting with dpkg in an upgrade means and what might be
problematic if you aren't careful – in general, not just with aliasing)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
for a spot).
So, I am currently waiting for either vim or upstream to act first while
dealing with other housekeeping things (clang-17 support) in the
meantime; so much as a status report in case anyone wonders.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
is? The code even checks for /sbin, /bin und /lib – but that isn't
all that /usr-merge entails and APT doesn't really want to be checking
for everything. Just for some easy to verify truths to ensure nothing
went south… like it seems to have happened on your system.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
kinda
scary to block the defaults meta package for a programming language
you know nothing about with your leaf package…
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
rom
> binary packages, but the way to get them with apt does not work:
https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt/-/merge_requests/261
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Control: tag -1 pending
Hello,
Bug #1008759 in apt reported by you has been fixed in the
Git repository and is awaiting an upload. You can see the commit
message below and you can check the diff of the fix at:
https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt/-/commit/889462ec33480940a355589b0ae57987f17a86e
That is for
someone to investigate who has an idea about ruby, hence reassigning
down the chain.
You may want to add which versions of ruby packages and apt-listbugs are
involved.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Control: tag -1 pending
Hello,
Bug #984966 in apt reported by you has been fixed in the
Git repository and is awaiting an upload. You can see the commit
message below and you can check the diff of the fix at:
https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt/-/commit/0d25ce3d466ecddea02d171981f011f7dbf95e08
upgrade, so that we might be able to reproduce this.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
them not even compile.)
Sorry for this breaking change this late in the cycle! If its any
consolation I am also angry that I not only not managed to finish the
fuzzing project in time, but also not managed to salvage the more useful
bit in a more timely fashion either.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
inst a binary package not
build for the architecture or sources.list components of the reporters
machine).
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
so probably not read /etc/dpkg.cfg.d files
from the root system, but that might be an even longer endeavour)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
[0]
https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt/-/commit/3fe1419433f195d57b948b100b218cf14a2841d0
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
you are building for.
See dpkg-vendor and deb-substvars. In apt we are e.g. using this to
depend on the correct -archive-keyring package for the distribution we
are built for, there are probably easier/better examples though.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
[0] https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt/-/merge_requests/117
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
k even if I dislike bug-pingpong. Feel free to ask if you
have come up with a specific solution for your problem and want some
feedback from us regarding apt, but be prepared to explain a lot in your
question as apt developers are "only" (FSVO) experts in apt, not in the
dependency
nd and the multitude of checks it deploys as many things are
covered by these already which for other more generic internet clients
remain a huge problem.
So far I see only very generic guess and maybe-ifs which are not
actionable and very much not a release critical bug – mostly because
I don&#
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 04:52:36PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 03:31:07PM +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 12:19:36PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > Anyway, that apt is enforcing the metadata isn't ch
;"Origin:
Debian" Release' for me. It isn't particularity hard to find others with
better usability factors.
So if the proposed solution is over engineered I am all ears for
alternatives which deal with these issues.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
P.S.: Pinning and other a
ion names,
wording of messages,… …) I would encourage you to comment there and
leave that bugreport for the overarching "this sucks!" and "greatest
thing since sliced bread!" on the whole infrastructure as for this to
work at least release, ftp & publicity team have to accept me imposing
work on them (which arguably they already do anyhow, but still) and
hence quickly derails if we argue about Soon/Upcoming/Next/Future-
in here, too.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 12:06:53AM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> As the freeze is drawing near I would appreciate a reply in the next
> week so that we can proceed accordingly – I am e.g. happy to sponsor
> uploads if need be. On the other hand, if I get no reply I plan to
&g
e following the MIA track.
Best regards & wishes for the upcoming new year
David Kalnischkies
[0]
$ python3
Python 3.7.2rc1 (default, Dec 12 2018, 06:25:49)
[GCC 8.2.0] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>&
Control: tag -1 pending
Hello,
Bug #909155 in apt reported by you has been fixed in the
Git repository and is awaiting an upload. You can see the commit
message below, and you can check the diff of the fix at:
https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt/commit/6f1d622c84b3b7f821683bf69b8fcdb6dcf272a2
deal sanely with
the constant name-changing of gtests packaging through…
(or well, we probably need to end up with a mix of all that to keep
working everywhere, so… no patch, just a hint for others looking into
it as I was a bit surprised it worked for me locally…).
Best regards
David K
general, so I would say this isn't an apt bug.
(Althrough, if we decide on v2, I guess apt needs to change anyhow as
that same call thing might be just dumb luck in this case. Not even sure
if v1 is in any way "guaranteed" to be perfectly honest…)
Can't stop the feeling that we had issues with python begin called from
prerm before and the general advice was: "don't – stick to essential".
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
but really
some syscall not whitelisted which should be).
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
omplete or outdated already)
and the other files tend to be no longer compressed & you can't be sure
that if you compress it again, that you would get the same hash (as e.g.
different versions of a compressor can generate different compatible
files).
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
at could turn out to be more confusing than
helping… (and as said, dpkg hasn't changed in a while).
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
u said it right in the paragraph I quoted and still I missed it
that both symbols are emitted and thought the symbols patch is a typo
missing a '-' … thanks brain, very good job…
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
I would presume they managed to pull
it of somehow (or we would be looking at v7 everywhere now).
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
[0]
https://lists.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
y, I guess 'domain knowledge' is involved as we wouldn't be
talking if libssl-dev would be a new mail-transport-agent. It would be
perfectly clear that it must conflict with the others even if there is
no technical reason for it given that the other mail-transport-agents
already confli
ve as hinted
above. Please CC de...@lists.debian.org if there are any questions you
think we could answer.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
¹ The cagefights are a design decision in the current default resolver,
which is impossible^Whard to change and absolutely not going to happen
any time soon y
rading perl) as the dependency on libcrack2 is already
satisfied at the start of the upgrade (as its a version before jessie).
As the dependencies of libcrack2 are very lightweight (just libc6 which
is done at that point) it might already work if you artificially require
a stretch-version here (= guess, not tested at all).
Best regards
David Kalnischkies, who is in a love-hate relationship with triggers
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
some details on what to do instead and how to
achieve compatibility with "old" and "new" po4a.
Thanks Martin for picking up po4a development btw even if the timing is
a bit unfortunate for (accidental?) uploads to unstable…
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
feature, too].
> > Remember we're talking about adding extra repositories with custom d-i
> > configuration, so I'm fine with people having broken stuff because they
> > pasted a whole mail…
>
> agreed, we can expect these folks to get the details right.
For the same reason I wouldn't worry too much about people using *.asc
files with binary format contents and vice versa to be honest.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
self: I haven't looked closely, but apt tries
to not explore solutions caused by M-A:same version screw – aptitude
seems way more willing to suggest such solutions; that is okay I guess
as it is way more interactive, too.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 10:06:17PM -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 01:29:07PM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> > You should also update your README.Debian and the descriptions with the
> > new paths and the transitional package as [...]
>
he longer the grace period the better…
btw: Upstream seems to have retired their remark on compiling googletest
on your own as I can't find it any longer on their website and e.g. in
the RPM/BSD worlds you get a binary only.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
based on the git commit message)
---
commit fb51ce3295929947555f4883054f210a53d9fbdf
Author: David Kalnischkies
Date: Mon Aug 22 21:33:38 2016 +0200
do dpkg --configure before --remove/--purge --pending
Commit 7ec343309b7bc6001b465c870609b3c570026149 got us most of the way,
but
nterface… /nitpick ]
> resolvers like dose3 or aspcud will happily find a solution.
I hope so! Otherwise I would seriously question what researchers have
done in the last decade (we are actually getting close to two now)… ;)
Of course, they aren't perfect either or someone surely had put in the
effort of making them the default…
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
based on the git commit message)
---
commit ebca2f254ca96ad7ad855dca6e76c9d1c792c4a0
Author: David Kalnischkies
Date: Sat Nov 28 13:17:57 2015 +0100
disable privilege-drop verification by default as fakeroot trips over it
Dropping privileges is an involved process for code and
> In which case, going back to apt.git and "sudo debi -u" to reinstall all
> packages I've built seems to fix the issue.
As mentioned briefly schroot copies users & groups from your host
system, so if your host system has no _apt user, the _apt user in your
schroot will "disappear" next time it is copied over.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
privilege dropping for the moment.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
diff --git a/apt-pkg/contrib/fileutl.cc b/apt-pkg/contrib/fileutl.cc
index 46de634..f754b31 100644
--- a/apt-pkg/contrib/fileutl.cc
+++ b/apt-pkg/contrib/fileutl.cc
@@ -2322,12 +2322,17 @@ bool DropPrivileges() /*{{{*/
ak symbol magic, which
I initially intended anyhow, but part forgot and part found useful while
working on this change.
¹ if "-private" wasn't enough of a hint, headers aren't available, no
symbols/shlibs file and exactly nobody cares about ABI/API in there.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
are started and/or always
working as root, so just 'locking' is not an option if you don't happen
to forbid every use of libapt as non-root in the process and only allow
libapt to be loaded by only one root application at the time. That would
immensly cripple the useability for next to no gain…
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
akeroot --keyring rootdir/etc/apt/trusted.gpg
> del DBAC8DAE
Shouldn't (at least) this testcase fail if you fail on not acting?
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ilar such. Its used only for display proposes anyway
and if a user sees a "bzip2 21kB/42kB" or a "decomp 21/kB/42kB"² should
not matter much (trivial diff attached).
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
² 'decomp' mostly because apt has a tendency to use incomprehens
the date of an upgrade.
Thanks, but the status is indeed 'too late'. Its your system already
fully upgraded to jessie. Good would have been your wheezy status, or
the one in between, but well, that can be attributed to me being such
a slowpoke in replying, sorry. :/
I am inclined to close this as "not an issue anymore" instead of merging
it with the other trigger loop bugs as we have enough of them already
with very similar information (to be fair, I am inclined to close them
as well, but I guess it will be a jessie-ignore by Nils [or another
release teamer] instead to scare me).
Or is there anything left unanswered/open?
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
7;t a new issue (= always possible in
all versions of apt), apt isn't made unusuable by it, we are not loosing
any data (well, with a fulldisk we potentially are, but that is the bug
of other tools not handling this case) and its not opening a security
hole. So neither of the reasons for &#
is is a problem in practice, but it is technically allowed (as
long as debconf has no python dependency). This probably get slight more
real if python-minimal ever decides to link to (e.g.) python5 instead.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
in the release I guess everyone will be happy about a one-line fix.
(Michael is uploading it any minute now)
Attached is my fullblown 'proper' patch with a testcase I am going to
apply to our /experimental branch for comparison in the meantime.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
diff --gi
nt story of what happened and why. I know its
tempting to "add" evidence as a witness, but that can spoil the whole
process.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
P.S.: The 'newcomer' tag is for maintainers to indicate "bitsized" bugs
which a newcomer to the project/packa
ceptable, I think it might be better than the
alternatives like ripping this out of dpkg again or busy-waiting for me
to figure something out (especially as I doubt that it will be pretty or
even simple if at all solveable for wheezy-upgrades given we only have
apt/wheezy for it…).
Best regard
Control: found -1 0.9.16
Control: tags -1 patch
On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 04:00:10PM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> In the meantime, I hopefully figure out what is the meaningful
> difference between wheezy and jessie score keeping here. I remember
> a few changes, but they should actu
ases rather than
making it fail spectacularly…
(Remove an essential pkg? Seriously, bro?)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ve justed resolved
the problem in the setsid testcase.
Thanks in any case for the report and the testcase, especially the
later helped tremendously in reproducing the problem!
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
commit c6bc9735cf1486d40d85bba90cfc3aaa6537a9c0
Author: David Kalnischkies
Date:
otherwise
this sheduled call would be run at 100%. Included is a testcase for
this, but this obviously requires a "broken" dpkg version to see that it
actually works.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
commit 1a46b9499017105f0d6a8c6319521088eadff6b2
Author: David Kalnischkies
Date:
the previous mail was that the last
command here would fail as a pending trigger can't be run. It doesn't,
so my biggest concern with dpkg::TriggersPending isn't really existing,
but I still think that running it all the time isn't needed if we can
just do the more general ConfigurePending once.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
P.S.: I will respond to other parts of the mail/thread in other
threads/bugs to keep all reasonably ordered… if that is possible.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 10:15:22AM +0100, intrigeri wrote:
> David Kalnischkies wrote (06 Nov 2014 21:52:10 GMT) :
> > On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:14:24PM +0100, intrigeri wrote:
> >> David Kalnischkies wrote (28 Oct 2014 14:00:40 GMT) :
> >> > Upgrading irssi from 0.
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:14:24PM +0100, intrigeri wrote:
> David Kalnischkies wrote (28 Oct 2014 14:00:40 GMT) :
> > Upgrading irssi from 0.8.16-1+b1 to 0.8.17-1 seems to break the OTR
> > plugin for me.
>
> I'm wondering if this could be a side-effect of #767230
t
and be done. It is at the very least not release critical.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
either; irssi is connected via ZNC).
Downgrading irssi to the previous version solves this issue.
I have CC'ed irssi maintainers in case they have an idea what is wrong
and/or as this if unsolved effects jessie might warrant a Breaks.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
anyway).
Thanks for testing & hinting and until next time in apt-cdrom bugland ;)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
I have extended a bit
to cover a bit more ground, too. Nothing near proper testing though, so
someone giving it a proper testspin would be nice, but if that is too
hard I guess Michael could just upload it and let the world test it for
us (now that he doesn't have to fear another security upload).
enote: In public_html/ there are also some *.new files for me,
namely for robots.txt and default.css – I doubt I had changed them
either, so at least default.css would have been nice if it was upgraded
automatically (I see why robots.txt wasn't) [even better if it would be
handled like
qFindTagWrite("Section");
Ver->Section = tempvalue;
Seems trivial, right? It is also the reason why regardless of how hard
you try to find all these instances, one or two are always slipping
through (but after 4 years, there can't be that many left, right? ;) )
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 12:04:51PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2014, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> > For your attack to be (always) successful, you need a full-sources
> > mirror on which you modify all tarballs, so that you can build a valid
> > Sources file.
world peace first though. Might be easier…
But I am a naive kid. 5 years ago I wondered why a small bug – which
even I could provide a patch for – wasn't fixed. Now I wonder how the
"team" manages to keep up with reading bugs at all; but its the same for
many other "Debian: native
' talks about install, so we would need a new
string
- 'apt-get download' isn't interactive either
(- it is more in line with your own commit summary)
Counter arguments?
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
would therefore not
require a new string and should be simple(r) to backport if needed.
As this will surely find at least a few complainers for stable I will
repeat it though: This breaks (obviously) compatibility with unsigned
archives. Workaround for those buggers would be the flag from above.
Haven't written patch/testcase yet though, as I should be in dreamland
for a while now, so I could be horribly wrong about all this of course.
Not a lot of time tomorrow^Wtoday (and I can't upload anyway), so,
Michael, could you please have a look and talk to the security teams?
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
e-Depends loop. This is
| often bad, but if you really want to do it, activate the
| APT::Force-LoopBreak option.
Not really a lot better from a user point as you still can't really
upgrade, it is just slightly less scary than a segfault, but that bug
has really to be resolved on the systemd/sysvi
r invent another (better) solution.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
P.S.: Full-disclosure bla bla: At the moment a third solution would be
for apt to temporary install sysvinit-core, to be able to install the
new version of sysvinit, so that it in turn can remove sysvinit-core
again and replace i
s welcome to confirm), it also removes the dependency on binary
math and endian flip grokking – and even reduces codesize. ;)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
commit 05eab8afb692823f86c53c4c2ced783a7c185cf9
Author: Adam Conrad
Date: Sat Apr 26 10:24:40 2014 +0200
fix FileFd::Size bitswap
about it.
Well, for starters it would be nice if you could tell us the actual
commands you executed and error messages you are seeing, otherwise
we have no idea what you are talking about.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
x27;ident' is "a debugging tool". You will
hopefully understand that even if I had anticipated that the commit
would cause trouble I would have assumed nobody would use it.
(I see now that apt-setup is using it and why, and while the information
is in the add output as well it is probably a bit harder to get it from
there, point taken, but that this is easy to say after the fact)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
moreinfo tag without any additional info, so "first warning".
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
l.
Downgrades are not supported and usually not a good idea.
Trying to downgrade really important stuff like libc6 will not just not
work, but explode bigtime.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 02:21:40PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> David Kalnischkies, le Tue 11 Feb 2014 19:36:59 +0100, a écrit :
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 06:35:37PM +0100, Petr Salinger wrote:
> > > The apt 0.9.15.1 started to use futimens instead of previous utime.
> &
the filename around anyway and it will
silence cppcheck (and I don't have to remember to ignore the remark).
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
et even more.
> So I'm also inclined to add the Breaks.
Usually I would suggest a transitional package in addition, but in this
case I am going a bit further:
The error message suggests to me (who has absolutely no idea what he is
talking about through) that hal configures udev to send messages to hal.
Why not just drop this configuration if it doesn't work anyway… ?
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
"suddenly" smells like our front ends are going
to hate us… (at least if they parse what they hand to them with this).
[The code parsing dpkg status lines is a bloody mess, but I hope I will
find some time in-between vintage this weekend to have a closer look]
Best regards
David Kal
re really okay to be removed,
as its a guess, no a definite knowledge. The stuff deleted by the clean
commands on the other hand is really not needed anymore and/or is
redownloaded by APT automatically if it needs it.
So, I wouldn't run them together as they don't belong together.
Be
time now
to check, just wanted to remove the RC-bug indicator so nobody is scared.)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu
wrote:
> Package: apt
> Version: 0.9.7.9
> Severity: grave
> Tags: security
>
> Source packages are s
the naming of zlib1g … ;) ).
The most interesting part will be writing a testcase for that…
(the rest of the commit doesn't look completely bulletproof either, mmh)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
might be wrong on your system
and how to fix it (I presume it isn't a bug in the end, but they will know)
Downgraded the severity though as a warning itself isn't destroying anything
and your transcript shows that indeed the dpkg/APT run was successful.
Best regards
David Kalni
l keep working for a while. :)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Am 19.05.2013 17:15, schrieb David Kalnischkies:
>> The dpkg/status file before the upgrade could be helpful for reproducing.
>> You can (hopefully) find it in /var/backup/
>>
>> Helpful config options (I case
isn't configured (aka that
it behaves like an essential application), but I am not in the mood for
bug-ping-pong so just CC'ed python maintainers for now, so they can have a
look and comment on it while we will see whats up with APT to decide on
this route (did I mention that a dpkg/status
es) while having << and >= breaks on the real styles.
The unpack of tango should have caused dpkg to auto-deconfigure commons
though if I see that right (but I haven't the time to look too closely now).
As said, it would be really helpful if you could find the status file.
Best
l of them having their own set of downsizes and depending on who the user
is (and how the machine looks like) I would suggest a different order for
trying them out.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
ms of ordering?
(aka: Am I crazy yet or what the hell is going on)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 18:17:46 +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>
>> Pictures^Wdpkg-status files or it didn't happen, as I said multiple times
>> now.
>>
> You'll find the (compressed) status file
mpletion: Enhances are not handled)
It's just that a user shouldn't really be required to know what those are.
(if you digg deaper [usually in non-user facing texts] you will come across
"hard", "important", "soft", "negative" and "positive" dependencies to
complete the confusion. I will leave it as an exercise for now which subsets
are meant with those adjectives)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
not.
So it would be interesting to know about which versions we are talking here.
The original bugreport e.g. is against an early post-squeeze APT version,
so are other instances now against apt/squeeze or against apt/wheezy or
some version in-between?
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
--
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
