On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 02:47:05AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> [ @deity: please check out the dbus issue below. ]
[..]
> [ Re dbus issue ]
> > Noted. Do we (still?) have a (reliable) way of reproducing the "dbus"
> > trigger issue?
>
> We didn't up to now (AFAIK), but there's now very valuable data from
> Karl Ljungkvist at #774124. I've been able to reproduce the issue with
> that status file and apt (over a clean debootstrap of jessie, and
> adding i386 as a foreign arch).
Thanks for pointing us towards this bugreport, this contains some good
information. I followed up there with some more questions, it would be
really nice to be able to reproduce what error happend that caused
this broken state.
> And have been trying out several things:
>
> * It seems to affect both apt from jessie/sid and wheezy. :(
> apt gets into a state it cannot recover from by itself.
Indeed, apt sees the "triggers-pending" and "triggers-awaited" state
and tries to run "dpkg --configure" on all those packages. This
fails.
> * «dpkg --configure --pending» solves the issue.
> * Using dpkg --force-configure-any only fixes the issue partially, :(
> because apt does not notice that the package has been implicitly
> configured, and tries to configure the package again and dpkg exits
> with an error for that run, which apt does not like much either (as
> I feared). So I'd need to also change dpkg to not fail configuring
> an already configure package, or try to detect that specific case.
When you say "implicitly configured" what does that mean exactly? Is
the issue here that apt should ignore the triggers-awaited state
because those will be dealt with by dpkg entirely?
I also wonder if there are further implications for apt by the trigger
changes. The ordering code in apt builds on the premise that there is
no implict configuration, it builds the unpack/configure ordering
early and its static. Is this still a valid assumption?
[..]
> Before considering either reverting, or trying to find a workaround
> for this in dpkg, I'd like to know if this is easily fixable in apt
> and the implications of this problem (i.e. can it affect similar
> situations regardless of the recent dpkg trigger changes?) and the
> implications of such a fix.
We have code in "pkgApplyStatus" that detects and fixes not-ok
packages. So far it considered packages with
triggers-{pending,awaited} as something to just "dpkg --configure". We
could change the code to ignore those states and simply let dpkg
handle them (via Davids code that ensures 'dpkg --configure -a' gets
called). Does that sound sensible?
I'm still a bit nervous about the issue that lead to #774124. It would
be good to get more data here.
Cheers,
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
