Bug#880985: Change python-lzma from Recommends to Depends
Hello Ritesh, - Considering that, at least in Debian 9, using the default deb.debian.org entry in sources.list, the database files are xzipped (therefore, depending on python-lzma), this is a problem, and the error message is misleading. Hmmm. I was under the impression that this functionality (that of what archive backend) was left out to the mirror admins. In today's day, though, the standard practise is to simply use what the master node serves. I believe so. It may depend on which mirror I was directed to, and perhaps it was bad luck I got one using XZ. However, if there is a chance of this happening, then either apt-offline in the offline machine should ensure it supports XZ, or the apt-offline in the online machine should make the necessary arrangements to ensure the offline machine is able to handle the archives (e.g. repacking them with a supported backend). This appears to be much more trouble than it's worth, which is why my suggestion was to just ensure the python-lzma package becomes required. Given this scenario, I suggest the Debian package to have python-lzma in Depends instead of Recommends, and/or the upstream apt-offline to present more information if the module lzma is not available, even if only with --verbose, and especially when that is a cause of failure. For quite some time, Debian has enabled to install Recommends, by default. That is why I marked it as a Recommends, so that it remains flexible for users who don't use the lzma based backend. Can you please check if you have explicitly disabled installation of Recommends in your setup ? As I said earlier, my use case has the implication that I can not connect the computer, ever. Not even to install apt-offline. The way I bootstrapped apt-offline (in a brand-new Debian system) was by downloading its .deb, and the .debs of all the *depended* packages, and installed them with dpkg -i in the offline machine. This is how I missed python-lzma. It's okay to keep it in Recommends. I like to keep things simple, too, and often skip the recommended packages when they appear to make no sense to me. I respect that. The alternative here is to let the user know when the missing package is making a difference, and what are its consequences. I do think it deserves being a Depend, though, if XZ is commonly used to compress the archives, since that undermines apt-offline's operation. Alternatively, if python-lzma is not installed, apt-offline running from the online machine could download its package anyway, giving the user a choice to install it when needed, even while offline. This avoids a situation where a user has infrequent access to the Internet and the lack of this package blocks the user until the next Internet access (but since it's the package lists themselves that are compressed with XZ and APT will not function without them, this is a chicken-and-egg problem, in which the user has to know they need to dpkg -i python-lzma.deb before populating the APT database with apt-offline). Notwithstanding, including it in Depends only solves a symptom. The real problem was the lack of error detail. I could have easily installed python-lzma, if only I knew _that_ was the problem. I know that the current versions are written in Python 3, but as long as Debian 9 is the current stable, this issue may burn someone else. I have added the following warning. Will backport some time for Stretch. Let's keep this bug open until then. If you don't see activity on this bug report in the next 2 months, please do ping. rrs@priyasi:~/rrs-home/devel/apt-offline/apt-offline (master)$ ./apt- offline install /var/tmp/upgrade.zip WARN: lzma module unavailable WARN: Please install python lzma module for APT lzma backend Yup, I believe that mitigates the problem. I was considering changing the code this weekend and creating a pull request, but it may no longer be needed. I might still add some more lines to the verbose log, though, if you agree! Thank you for your attention! Valmiky Arquissandas
Bug#880985: Change python-lzma from Recommends to Depends
Package: apt-offline Version: 1.7.2 During the initial sync of the APT database in apt-offline (apt-offline install target/ --verbose), apt-offline kept failing with errors like "Failed to sync file /var/lib/apt/lists/partial/deb.debian.org_debian_dists_stretch_main_binary-amd64_Packages". After debugging, I finally realized that the issue was on a missing python-lzma on the offline machine, failing silently. Please consider the following: - In this use case, apt-offline is being used to maintain a reasonably air-gapped machine, which means it was never connected to any network. - This means that the initial APT database update also depended on apt-offline. There was no online database update whatsoever. - The missing LZMA module was NOT apparent, not even with --verbose - The following lines in /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/apt_offline_core/AptOfflineLib.py are especially significant, as they are effectively a silent failure: --- try: import lzma except ImportError: modLZMA = False --- - Considering that, at least in Debian 9, using the default deb.debian.org entry in sources.list, the database files are xzipped (therefore, depending on python-lzma), this is a problem, and the error message is misleading. Given this scenario, I suggest the Debian package to have python-lzma in Depends instead of Recommends, and/or the upstream apt-offline to present more information if the module lzma is not available, even if only with --verbose, and especially when that is a cause of failure. I know that the current versions are written in Python 3, but as long as Debian 9 is the current stable, this issue may burn someone else. Thank you for your attention, Valmiky Arquissandas
Bug#763522: mutt segfault when selecting pgp key goes away with noopt
I'm having the same problem, and the core dump's backtrace corresponds to Andreas'. Shouldn't this be considered release critical, since this is one of the core features of mutt? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#692777: locales: dpkg-reconfigure locales does not generate the locales by wrongly assuming that locales-all is installed
Package: locales Version: 2.13-35 Tags: patch Followup-For: Bug #692777 Patch follows: --- locales.postinst.old2012-11-09 14:03:40.691380085 + +++ locales.postinst2012-11-09 14:03:53.623209249 + @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ fi # Update requested locales if locales-all is not installed -if dpkg-query -S locales-all /dev/null 21 ; then +if dpkg-query -s locales-all /dev/null 21 ; then echo locales-all installed, skipping locales generation else locale-gen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#692777: locales: dpkg-reconfigure locales does not generate the locales by wrongly assuming that locales-all is installed
Package: locales Version: 2.13-35 Severity: normal Hello, When I execute dpkg-reconfigure locales and choose the right options, it terminates with the message locales-all installed, skipping locales generation This happens because in /var/lib/dpkg/info/locales.postinst , this check is made: if dpkg-query -S locales-all /dev/null 21 ; then and it happens the the live-config package has this file: # dpkg-query -S locales-all live-config: /lib/live/config/0060-locales-all The package locales-all is not installed, but the locales.postinst script is wrongly assuming it is. Thank you, Valmiky Arquissandas -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=pt_PT.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=pt_PT.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages locales depends on: ii debconf [debconf-2.0] 1.5.46 ii libc6 [glibc-2.13-1] 2.13-35 locales recommends no packages. locales suggests no packages. -- debconf information: * locales/default_environment_locale: None * locales/locales_to_be_generated: en_GB ISO-8859-1, en_GB.ISO-8859-15 ISO-8859-15, en_GB.UTF-8 UTF-8, en_IE ISO-8859-1, en_IE.UTF-8 UTF-8, en_IE@euro ISO-8859-15, en_US ISO-8859-1, en_US.ISO-8859-15 ISO-8859-15, en_US.UTF-8 UTF-8, pt_PT ISO-8859-1, pt_PT.UTF-8 UTF-8, pt_PT@euro ISO-8859-15 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#692777: locales: dpkg-reconfigure locales does not generate the locales by wrongly assuming that locales-all is installed
Package: locales Version: 2.13-35 Followup-For: Bug #692777 I believe that a working fix would be changing to dpkg-query -s (with a lowercase s), as it returns dpkg-query: package 'locales-all' is not installed and no information is available and a return code of 1. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
