Re: Multiple dpkg warning (non-empty directories) during upgrade to wheezy
On Sun, 3 Nov 2013, Reco wrote: Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 13:29:37 +0400 From: Reco recovery...@gmail.com To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Multiple dpkg warning (non-empty directories) during upgrade to wheezy Resent-Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 09:30:08 + (UTC) Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 11:20:55 +0200 (IST) Itay deb...@itayf.fastmail.fm wrote: Hi, After upgrading squeeze -- wheezy I examined the session transcript and found multiple warnings like this: dpkg: warning: unable to delete old directory '/some/path': Directory not empty In few cases the said directory was deleted after all. But in most cases the directory is indeed still there. The residing files were not edited by me, or dropped by me. I feel uncomfortable having such debris in the file-system but am not sure if this is really something to be concerned about. To clean up I thought of doing for each 'leftover' (= file, directory) $ apt-file search 'leftover' # and assuming no package claims ownership of 'leftover' $ rm 'leftover' # or rmdir 'leftover' Does it make sense? Or did I miss something? Short of using 'apt-file search' instead of 'dpkg -S' this is correct. The difference is apt-file will find you some package even it's not installed currently. Reco, Thanks for helping me out on this, too. Using your advice I was able to further clean-up. I was left with two puzzling cases in which an orphan directory contains dpkg'ed files. 1. /etc/openoffice # dpkg -S /etc/openoffice dpkg-query: no path found matching pattern /etc/openoffice # for f in /etc/openoffice/*; do dpkg -S $f; done openoffice.org-common: /etc/openoffice/psprint.conf openoffice.org-common: /etc/openoffice/soffice.sh openoffice.org-common: /etc/openoffice/sofficerc (There was an orphan file /etc/openoffice/dictionary.lst.old, which I removed.) 2. /etc/texmf/tex/latex/contour # ddir=/etc/texmf/tex/latex/contour # dpkg -S $ddir; for f in $ddir/*; do dpkg -S $f; done; unset f dpkg-query: no path found matching pattern /etc/texmf/tex/latex/contour texlive-latex-extra: /etc/texmf/tex/latex/contour/contour.cfg Questions: A. Is this an acceptable state? B. Is this a bug? Thanks in advance, Itay [snip] Reco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.DEB.2.02.1311041114580.7090@gandalf.furmanet
Re: Multiple dpkg warning (non-empty directories) during upgrade to wheezy
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 11:27:57 +0200 (IST) Itay deb...@itayf.fastmail.fm wrote: Thanks for helping me out on this, too. Using your advice I was able to further clean-up. I was left with two puzzling cases in which an orphan directory contains dpkg'ed files. 1. /etc/openoffice # dpkg -S /etc/openoffice dpkg-query: no path found matching pattern /etc/openoffice # for f in /etc/openoffice/*; do dpkg -S $f; done openoffice.org-common: /etc/openoffice/psprint.conf openoffice.org-common: /etc/openoffice/soffice.sh openoffice.org-common: /etc/openoffice/sofficerc (There was an orphan file /etc/openoffice/dictionary.lst.old, which I removed.) aptitude search '~o' will show you all packages that were in squeeze, but are removed from Debian repository in wheezy. Everything in that list can be removed more or less safely. Given that openoffice was replaced with libreoffice in wheezy that's probably the case. 2. /etc/texmf/tex/latex/contour # ddir=/etc/texmf/tex/latex/contour # dpkg -S $ddir; for f in $ddir/*; do dpkg -S $f; done; unset f dpkg-query: no path found matching pattern /etc/texmf/tex/latex/contour texlive-latex-extra: /etc/texmf/tex/latex/contour/contour.cfg Questions: A. Is this an acceptable state? B. Is this a bug? Maybe. I'm not that familiar with LaTeX. Still, if file belongs to the package, and directory in which the file resides is not, that's probably ok. Reco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131104141743.190da6e58e665030f6774...@gmail.com
[SOLVED] Multiple dpkg warning (non-empty directories) during upgrade to wheezy
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Reco wrote: On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 11:27:57 +0200 (IST) Itay deb...@itayf.fastmail.fm wrote: Thanks for helping me out on this, too. Using your advice I was able to further clean-up. I was left with two puzzling cases in which an orphan directory contains dpkg'ed files. 1. /etc/openoffice # dpkg -S /etc/openoffice dpkg-query: no path found matching pattern /etc/openoffice # for f in /etc/openoffice/*; do dpkg -S $f; done openoffice.org-common: /etc/openoffice/psprint.conf openoffice.org-common: /etc/openoffice/soffice.sh openoffice.org-common: /etc/openoffice/sofficerc (There was an orphan file /etc/openoffice/dictionary.lst.old, which I removed.) aptitude search '~o' will show you all packages that were in squeeze, but are removed from Debian repository in wheezy. Everything in that list can be removed more or less safely. Given that openoffice was replaced with libreoffice in wheezy that's probably the case. I did clean up all the obsolete packages (except for one). openoffice.org-common was marked as deleted, but not purged. I should have thought about this myself. Sorry. 2. /etc/texmf/tex/latex/contour # ddir=/etc/texmf/tex/latex/contour # dpkg -S $ddir; for f in $ddir/*; do dpkg -S $f; done; unset f dpkg-query: no path found matching pattern /etc/texmf/tex/latex/contour texlive-latex-extra: /etc/texmf/tex/latex/contour/contour.cfg Questions: A. Is this an acceptable state? B. Is this a bug? Maybe. I'm not that familiar with LaTeX. Still, if file belongs to the package, and directory in which the file resides is not, that's probably ok. I deem this is a low-priority issue, if a problem at all. Thanks for the help! Itay Reco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.DEB.2.02.1311041237080.7090@gandalf.furmanet
Multiple dpkg warning (non-empty directories) during upgrade to wheezy
Hi, After upgrading squeeze -- wheezy I examined the session transcript and found multiple warnings like this: dpkg: warning: unable to delete old directory '/some/path': Directory not empty In few cases the said directory was deleted after all. But in most cases the directory is indeed still there. The residing files were not edited by me, or dropped by me. I feel uncomfortable having such debris in the file-system but am not sure if this is really something to be concerned about. To clean up I thought of doing for each 'leftover' (= file, directory) $ apt-file search 'leftover' # and assuming no package claims ownership of 'leftover' $ rm 'leftover' # or rmdir 'leftover' Does it make sense? Or did I miss something? And just for curiousity: what could be the cause for the failure of dpkg to clean-up those directories? Thanks in advance, Itay -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.DEB.2.02.1311031105020.12188@gandalf.furmanet
Re: Multiple dpkg warning (non-empty directories) during upgrade to wheezy
On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 11:20:55 +0200 (IST) Itay deb...@itayf.fastmail.fm wrote: Hi, After upgrading squeeze -- wheezy I examined the session transcript and found multiple warnings like this: dpkg: warning: unable to delete old directory '/some/path': Directory not empty In few cases the said directory was deleted after all. But in most cases the directory is indeed still there. The residing files were not edited by me, or dropped by me. I feel uncomfortable having such debris in the file-system but am not sure if this is really something to be concerned about. To clean up I thought of doing for each 'leftover' (= file, directory) $ apt-file search 'leftover' # and assuming no package claims ownership of 'leftover' $ rm 'leftover' # or rmdir 'leftover' Does it make sense? Or did I miss something? Short of using 'apt-file search' instead of 'dpkg -S' this is correct. The difference is apt-file will find you some package even it's not installed currently. And just for curiousity: what could be the cause for the failure of dpkg to clean-up those directories? Good scenario: Package 1 created directory, put some files into it. Package 2 created some files in this directory too. You remove package 1, keep package 2. Bad scenario: Package was installed and its' post-install script created some files which do not belong to any package. You remove this package. Reco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131103132937.c04878b2acfc0ed269c1a...@gmail.com
