Your message dated Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:09:16 +0800
with message-id
<CAN3veRdhz8mJ9=uWemy4TNZ=dqw-yvmv7bdlw-eqvrrno93...@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#704298: Bug#704298: dpkg installs package without
error, but it then shows up as uninstalled
has caused the Debian Bug report #704298,
regarding dpkg installs package without error, but it then shows up as
uninstalled
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
704298: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=704298
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.16.10
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
You can seem some initial details here:
https://www.sprezzatech.com/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=710
Hi there. I have two packages, "apt" and "gir1.2-gtk-3.0", either of
which when installed (via dpkg -i, apt-get, or aptitude) will install
with no problems, but then continue to show up in the uninstalled state.
here's aptitude show output following a dpkg -i:
[skynet](0) $ aptitude show apt
Package: apt
Essential: yes
State: not installed
Automatically installed: yes
Version: 0.9.7.8-SprezzOS1
Priority: important
Section: admin
Maintainer: Nick Black <[email protected]>
Architecture: amd64
Uncompressed Size: 3,336 k
Depends: libapt-pkg4.12 (>= 0.9.7.8-), libc6 (>= 2.14), libgcc1 (>= 1:4.1.1),
libstdc++6 (>=
4.6), debian-archive-keyring, gnupg
Suggests: aptitude | synaptic | wajig, dpkg-dev, apt-doc, xz-utils, python-apt
Conflicts: python-apt (< 0.7.93.2~)
Replaces: manpages-pl (< 20060617-3~)
Description: commandline package manager
This package provides commandline tools for searching and managing as well as
querying
information about packages as a low-level access to all features of the
libapt-pkg library.
These include:
* apt-get for retrieval of packages and information about them from
authenticated sources and
for installation, upgrade and removal of packages together with their
dependencies
* apt-cache for querying available information about installed as well as
installable packages
* apt-cdrom to use removable media as a source for packages
* apt-config as an interface to the configuration settings
* apt-key as an interface to manage authentication keys
[skynet](0) $
While these are both SprezzOS packages, I'm using an unmodified Debian
Unstable dpkg. I don't doubt that I somehow messed up the package
generation, but this nonetheless seems a weird behavior/state. I've been
banging my head against this for a few hours with no luck.
Thanks!
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 1 (von Neumann)
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 3.7.7 (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Versions of packages dpkg depends on:
ii libbz2-1.0 1.0.6-SprezzOS1
ii libc6 2.16-SprezzOS1
ii liblzma5 5.1.2alpha-SprezzOS1
ii libselinux1 2.1.12-SprezzOS1
ii tar 1:1.26-SprezzOS2
ii zlib1g 2:1.2.7-SprezzOS1
dpkg recommends no packages.
Versions of packages dpkg suggests:
ii apt 0.9.7.8-SprezzOS1
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 2 April 2013 00:01, David Kalnischkies <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Daniel Hartwig <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 1 April 2013 03:56, Nick Black <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [my package is broken]
>>
>> The SprezzOS1 version is no longer available in
>> <http://www.sprezzatech.com/apt/pool/main/a/apt/>.
>>
>> Does the issue persist, and have you eliminated packaging errors on your
>> part?
>
> It's a "packaging issue" in the sense that the Depends line
> (or better: a version number in it) is sub-optimally written:
I suspected as such.
I took a brief look at other SprezzOS packages and found several
issues indicating inadequate practices. I am therefore closing, and
the maintainer of the SprezzOS packages can fix the situation.
For example, in the gtk+3.0 packaging we see that the first custom
packaging discards the still relevant debian_revision, the result is
that this tagged version compares as more recent than _any_
corresponding Debian revision (i.e. suppose a later 3.4.2-5 update),
which is not true:
gtk+3.0 (3.4.2-SprezzOS1) unstable; urgency=low
* SprezzOS build
-- nick black <[email protected]> Sun, 30 Sep 2012 02:19:39 -0400
gtk+3.0 (3.4.2-4) unstable; urgency=low
* debian/patches/074_try-harder-to-discriminate-Shift-F10-and-F10.patch:
With xkb-data 2.5.1-2.1 preserving the Shift modifier, GTK+ can properly
map F10 and Shift-F10 to different key bindings. Closes: #658392
-- Michael Biebl <[email protected]> Fri, 21 Sep 2012 18:30:41 +0200
Subsequent versions do not include (or do not include changelog
entries for) changes in Debian experimental, such as patches and
modified dh_install lists. They should at least include an explicit
"0" when not based on Debian packages, to make it obvious to end users
where they fit.
Changelog entries also leave much to be desired. As they stand they
are wholly uninformative, containing only the redundant information:
* SprezzOS build. The version number tells me that, but what
_changes_ have been included?
Nick, do adjust your packaging practices. These two guidelines for
versions (borrowed from Ubuntu):
- packages without a debian_revision (e.g. apt) do not add one: 0.9.7.8sprezz1;
- packages with a debian_revision, always keep it (if basing off that
package) or set it to 0: 3.4.2-4sprezz1.
A rebuild of a package should never drop versioning information.
Regards
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Aptitude-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel
