Re: upgrading to Woody, apt-utils question
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 04:17:53PM -0700, D. wrote: > I did a dist upgrade to Woody and keep receiving the error not > preconfiguring the package, apt-utils is not installed. > My question is when you do a upgrade like this why isn't apt-utils > installed with the upgrade if it is required for configuring the > packages? You don't actually need apt-utils, which is why it isn't installed. It's required for *pre*configuring packages, that is configuring them before an installation run starts so that you can (sometimes) let the whole install proceed without interruption. However, if preconfiguration isn't available, debconf will fall back to configuring packages one by one as they're installed. If not being able to preconfigure a package actually causes a real problem (a halted or a broken installation) as opposed to a warning message, then that is a bug either in debconf or in the particular package concerned. You don't say if this warning stops you installing packages, though. Also, debconf recommends apt-utils. apt-get doesn't follow recommends (a design decision), but if you had upgraded with dselect then apt-utils would have been selected for installation. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: upgrading to Woody, apt-utils question
Thanks, I install the apt-utils then do the dist-upgrade. Don --- Bastiaan Huisman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I've noticed this problem too.. And because I had so > much problems getting X > to start, I tried another distro. When (in the other > distro) I found the > problem why my X wouldn't start (which was quite > trivial), I installed > debian again, and this time I did it the right way. > > First I installed potato, I upgraded to kernel > 2.4.12 without any problems > because I guess potato now has those packages needed > to run kernel 2.4.x > too. Then I rebooted and added the apt-sources for > woody. I FIRST did a > apt-get install apt-utils .20 MB of packages where > downloaded for this. > AFTER that I did a dist-upgrade with totally no > problems. > > So I guess this is just a bug in the dist-upgrade > process. To fix this now, > you'll have to install apt-utils and maybe do some > "apt-get --reinstall > install packagename" for all packages that where not > configured the right > way. You might also try "dpkg-reconfigure > packagename" on some packages. > Maybe you could even force a complete reinstall of > the dist-upgrade by doing > a apt-get --reinstall dist-upgrade, but I didn't > test that. > > Bastiaan Huisman > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.student.kun.nl/b.huisman > > - Original Message - > From: "D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 1:17 AM > Subject: upgrading to Woody, apt-utils question > > > > Hi All > > I'm running Potato 2.2.r3 on a HP Pavilion 5450 > > (PIII > > 800 MGZ) with a EN2442 Nic Card that I had to > > configure the tulip driver for. > > I did a dist upgrade to Woody and keep receiving > > the error not preconfiguring the package, > apt-utils is > > > > not installed. > > My question is when you do a upgrade like this > why > > isn't apt-utils installed with the upgrade if it > is > > required for configuring the packages? > > Yes I reinstalled 2.2.r2, Potato. > > I have other questions, but will ask them one at > a > > time. > > Any and all responses are appreciated. > > Don > > > > > > > > __ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. > > http://personals.yahoo.com > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com
Re: upgrading to Woody, apt-utils question
Hi, I've noticed this problem too.. And because I had so much problems getting X to start, I tried another distro. When (in the other distro) I found the problem why my X wouldn't start (which was quite trivial), I installed debian again, and this time I did it the right way. First I installed potato, I upgraded to kernel 2.4.12 without any problems because I guess potato now has those packages needed to run kernel 2.4.x too. Then I rebooted and added the apt-sources for woody. I FIRST did a apt-get install apt-utils .20 MB of packages where downloaded for this. AFTER that I did a dist-upgrade with totally no problems. So I guess this is just a bug in the dist-upgrade process. To fix this now, you'll have to install apt-utils and maybe do some "apt-get --reinstall install packagename" for all packages that where not configured the right way. You might also try "dpkg-reconfigure packagename" on some packages. Maybe you could even force a complete reinstall of the dist-upgrade by doing a apt-get --reinstall dist-upgrade, but I didn't test that. Bastiaan Huisman [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.student.kun.nl/b.huisman - Original Message - From: "D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 1:17 AM Subject: upgrading to Woody, apt-utils question > Hi All > I'm running Potato 2.2.r3 on a HP Pavilion 5450 > (PIII > 800 MGZ) with a EN2442 Nic Card that I had to > configure the tulip driver for. > I did a dist upgrade to Woody and keep receiving > the error not preconfiguring the package, apt-utils is > > not installed. > My question is when you do a upgrade like this why > isn't apt-utils installed with the upgrade if it is > required for configuring the packages? > Yes I reinstalled 2.2.r2, Potato. > I have other questions, but will ask them one at a > time. > Any and all responses are appreciated. > Don > > > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. > http://personals.yahoo.com > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >
upgrading to Woody, apt-utils question
Hi All I'm running Potato 2.2.r3 on a HP Pavilion 5450 (PIII 800 MGZ) with a EN2442 Nic Card that I had to configure the tulip driver for. I did a dist upgrade to Woody and keep receiving the error not preconfiguring the package, apt-utils is not installed. My question is when you do a upgrade like this why isn't apt-utils installed with the upgrade if it is required for configuring the packages? Yes I reinstalled 2.2.r2, Potato. I have other questions, but will ask them one at a time. Any and all responses are appreciated. Don __ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com
Re: apt-utils
On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 10:09:10PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > So believe it or not, it does work for most of us. If you can get a log of > that with DEBCONF_DEBUG set, I would of course like to see it. I'll likely be doing at least one fresh install within the next 2-3 weeks. How would I best capture a log of the useful portion of the install so that I don't have to send you debug information on the full set of base packages? Also, the log I sent you yesterday was obtained by simply cutting and pasting from a terminal window; I suspect that the curses-based screen from the first time debconf asks how it should operate would interfere with this method. Is there a better way to capture that? > Any others? (And don't cite console-data, or cvs. Both have historically > had the same breakage in stable.) No others come to mind. Thanks for looking at this. -- That's not gibberish... It's Linux. - Byers, The Lone Gunmen Geek Code 3.12: GCS d? s+: a C++ UL$ P++>+++ L+++> E- W--(++) N+ o+ !K w--- O M- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t 5++ X+ R++ tv+ b+ DI D G e* h r y+
Re: apt-utils
Dave Sherohman wrote: > Whenever I install a new system, debconf (or rather, the minimal version on > the install disks) throws up a curses-based menu asking what mode I want it > to run in, then what level of messages to display. I consistently answer > text/medium. It then preconfigures other packages, unpacks everything, and > starts the actual configuration phase. At this time, I am again asked what > mode I want debconf to run in and what message level to display. I never saw this happen in all my testing of stable (hundreds of fresh installs). Nobody else has ever reported this either, nor have I seen this happen in the perhaps 10 installs of stable I have witnessed other people do. So believe it or not, it does work for most of us. If you can get a log of that with DEBCONF_DEBUG set, I would of course like to see it. > I just tried purging and reinstalling ssh on two machines. The one tracking > testing worked properly, only asking if I wanted it SUID and whether to run > sshd once. The one tracking stable asked 3(!) times. That version of apt > doesn't seem to like nonnumeric values for DEBCONF_DEBUG, so I tried setting > it to 100 instead, which seems to have worked. Well, this is ssh's breakage, seemingly limited to stable: > debconf: <-- FSET ssh/upgrade_to_openssh isdefault false Thus forcing debconf to redisplay the question each time. Any others? (And don't cite console-data, or cvs. Both have historically had the same breakage in stable.) -- see shy jo
Re: apt-utils
On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 03:29:43PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > I don't know what you're talking about: apt-utils does not use debconf. My mistake; s/apt-utils/debconf/g. Whenever I install a new system, debconf (or rather, the minimal version on the install disks) throws up a curses-based menu asking what mode I want it to run in, then what level of messages to display. I consistently answer text/medium. It then preconfigures other packages, unpacks everything, and starts the actual configuration phase. At this time, I am again asked what mode I want debconf to run in and what message level to display. > If that outputs "true", then you have configured debconf to redisplay > already seen questions. # apt-get install debconf-utils; echo get debconf/showold | debconf-communicate Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done Sorry, debconf-utils is already the newest version. 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded. 0 false > If not, I would dearly like the see a log of a package, any package, > displaying the same question both in preconfiguration and at install > time, with DEBCONF_DEBUG='.*' set and exported in the environment. I just tried purging and reinstalling ssh on two machines. The one tracking testing worked properly, only asking if I wanted it SUID and whether to run sshd once. The one tracking stable asked 3(!) times. That version of apt doesn't seem to like nonnumeric values for DEBCONF_DEBUG, so I tried setting it to 100 instead, which seems to have worked. Here's the log: --- Begin log --- genma /home/esper# apt-get remove --purge ssh Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done The following packages will be REMOVED: ssh* 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 to remove and 1 not upgraded. Need to get 0B of archives. After unpacking 515kB will be freed. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] (Reading database ... 50217 files and directories currently installed.) Removing ssh ... Stopping OpenBSD Secure Shell server: sshd. dpkg - warning: while removing ssh, directory `/etc/ssh' not empty so not removed. Purging configuration files for ssh ... Argument ".*" isn't numeric in int at /usr/lib/perl5/Debian/DebConf/Log.pm line 40. genma /home/esper# export DEBCONF_DEBUG=100 genma /home/esper# apt-get install ssh Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done The following NEW packages will be installed: ssh 0 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded. Need to get 0B/256kB of archives. After unpacking 515kB will be used. debconf: trying frontend Text Configuring packages ... debconf: starting /var/lib/debconf//config.14859 configure debconf: <-- VERSION 2.0 debconf: --> 0 2.0 debconf: <-- SET ssh/upgrade_to_openssh true debconf: --> 0 debconf: <-- FSET ssh/upgrade_to_openssh isdefault false debconf: --> 0 false debconf: <-- SET ssh/use_old_init_script true debconf: --> 0 debconf: <-- FSET ssh/use_old_init_script isdefault false debconf: --> 0 false debconf: <-- INPUT medium ssh/SUID_client debconf: Trying to make element of type Text::Boolean debconf: --> 0 debconf: <-- INPUT medium ssh/run_sshd debconf: Trying to make element of type Text::Boolean debconf: --> 0 grep: /etc/ssh/sshd_config: No such file or directory debconf: <-- INPUT low ssh/forward_warning debconf: Trying to make element of type Noninteractive::Note debconf: --> 30 debconf: <-- GO debconf: preparing to ask questions Configuring Ssh --- You have the option of installing the ssh client with the SUID bit set. If you make ssh SUID, you will be able to use Rhosts/RhostsRSA authentication, but will not be able to use socks via the LD_PRELOAD trick. This is the traditional approach. If you do not make ssh SUID, you will be able to use socks, but Rhosts/RhostsRSA authentication will stop working, which may stop you logging in to remote systems. It will also mean that the source port will be above 1024, which may confound firewall rules you've set up. If in doubt, I suggest you install it without SUID. If it causes problems you can change your mind later by running: dpkg-reconfigure ssh Do you want /usr/bin/ssh to be installed SUID root? [n] This package contains both the ssh client, and the sshd server. Normally the sshd Secure Shell Server will be run to allow remote logins via ssh. If you are only interested in using the ssh client for outbound connections on this machine, and don't want to log into it at all using ssh, then you can disable sshd here. Do you want to run the sshd server ? [y] debconf: --> 0 Selecting previously deselected package ssh. (Reading database ... 50183 files and directories currently installed.) Unpacking ssh (from .../ssh_1%3a1.2.3-9.3_i386.deb) ... debconf: frontend started debconf: trying frontend
Re: apt-utils
Dave Sherohman wrote: > The two cases that spring to mind of apt-utils consistently reasking > questions are ssh and apt-utils itself. (Although apt-utils is at least > decent enough to remember, when making the second pass through, that I'd > told it to use the text interface the first time around.) I don't know what you're talking about: apt-utils does not use debconf. apt-get install debconf-utils; echo get debconf/showold | debconf-communicate If that outputs "true", then you have configured debconf to redisplay already seen questions. If not, I would dearly like the see a log of a package, any package, displaying the same question both in preconfiguration and at install time, with DEBCONF_DEBUG='.*' set and exported in the environment. -- see shy jo
Re: apt-utils
Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > It is doing that and it has always done that.. It only fails sometimes > because the pipe fills up. > > Probably will take that out.. Ok, I will make dpkg-preconfigure do it's best to always read all input in --apt mode, but I stress that its best is not good enough, I can think of 6 possible failure modes off the top of my head. -- see shy jo
Re: apt-utils
On Sun, 27 May 2001, Joey Hess wrote: > Jason, if it's doing that, I think that's a dumb heuistic. As you can > see, there are valid reasons for ignoring the input and not failing. It is doing that and it has always done that.. It only fails sometimes because the pipe fills up. Probably will take that out.. Jason
Re: apt-utils
On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 02:09:19PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > It is supposed to be optional. In fact, I cannot see how it could > possibly be failing as you show. The || true is there so no matter what > status code dpkg-preconfigure returns, apt always sees a return code of > zero. I thought that was pretty odd too. > I have never seen this behavior except for when people have told debconf > to re-show questions, or with a couple of broken packages that force > debconf to redisplay seen questions. In the default configuration, it > works, and has worked for a long time. The two cases that spring to mind of apt-utils consistently reasking questions are ssh and apt-utils itself. (Although apt-utils is at least decent enough to remember, when making the second pass through, that I'd told it to use the text interface the first time around.) But I don't recall any cases where I've been asked a question in the preconfiguring stage and it didn't get repeated later. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, of course, just that I don't remember it. -- That's not gibberish... It's Linux. - Byers, The Lone Gunmen Geek Code 3.12: GCS d? s+: a C++ UL$ P++>+++ L+++> E- W--(++) N+ o+ !K w--- O M- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t 5++ X+ R++ tv+ b+ DI D G e* h r y+
Re: apt-utils
Dave Sherohman wrote:
> When did apt-utils become mandatory? I just did an apt-get upgrade (in
> testing) and it died immediately after downloading packages with the message
>
> debconf: cannot preconfigure packages -- apt-utils is not installed
> E: Failure running script /usr/sbin/dpkg-preconfigure --apt || true
>
> Installing apt-utils fixed this, but I thought it was supposed to be
> optional.
It is supposed to be optional. In fact, I cannot see how it could
possibly be failing as you show. The || true is there so no matter what
status code dpkg-preconfigure returns, apt always sees a return code of
zero. The only possiblity I can think of is that perhaps apt is now
checking to see if the program read all of its input, and assuming it
failed if it chooses not to.
Jason, if it's doing that, I think that's a dumb heuistic. As you can
see, there are valid reasons for ignoring the input and not failing.
Dave, you might try the attached version of apt-extracttemplates, which
reads all the input no matter what (almost -- I can think of situations
where it will not read all of its input -- for example, suppose
/usr/bin/perl is broken -- and apt may refuse to continue, making it hard to
upgrade. That's why I think apt should not do this.)
> (No, I don't want to use it until it actually works. In theory,
> apt-utils is supposed to let you answer all the packages' questions up front.
> In practice, every question that I answer up front is asked again later,
> completely ignoring my previous answers. How is that supposed to be
> helpful?)
I have never seen this behavior except for when people have told debconf
to re-show questions, or with a couple of broken packages that force
debconf to redisplay seen questions. In the default configuration, it
works, and has worked for a long time.
--
see shy jo
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
# This file was preprocessed, do not edit directly.
BEGIN {
eval qq{
use strict;
use FileHandle;
use Debconf::Log qw(:all);
use Debconf::Db;
use Debconf::Template;
use Debconf::Config;
use Debconf::AutoSelect qw(:all);
use Debconf::Gettext;
};
if ($@) {
print STDERR "debconf: Perl may be unconfigured ($@) --
aborting\n";
exit 0;
}
}
Debconf::Db->load;
my $apt=0;
Debconf::Config->getopt( # TODO: i18n this? What's the best way to break it up?
qq{Syntax: dpkg-reconfigure [options] [debs]
--aptApt mode.},
"apt" => \$apt,
);
$|=1;
my @[EMAIL PROTECTED];
@ARGV=();
if ($apt) {
while (<>) {
chomp;
push @debs, $_ if length $_;
}
exit unless @debs;
open (STDIN, "/dev/tty") ||
(print STDERR sprintf("dpkg-preconfigure: ".gettext("unable to
re-open stdin: %s"), $!)."\n", exit 0);
Debconf::Config->showold('false');
}
elsif (! @debs) {
print STDERR sprintf("dpkg-preconfigure: ".gettext("must specify some
debs to preconfigure")), "\n";
exit(1);
}
if (! -x "/usr/bin/apt-extracttemplates") {
warn gettext("(not preconfiguring packages since apt-utils is not
installed)");
exit;
}
my $frontend=make_frontend();
my ($package, $version, $template, $config);
unless (open(INFO, "-|")) {
exec "apt-extracttemplates", @debs or
print STDERR "debconf: exec of apt-extracttemplates failed: $!";
}
my @buffer=;
if ($apt && @buffer) {
print "Preconfiguring packages ...\n";
}
foreach my $line (@buffer) {
($package, $version, $template, $config)=split /\s/, $line;
if (defined $template && length $template) {
eval q{
Debconf::Template->load($template, $package)
};
unlink $template;
if ($@) {
print STDERR "$package ".sprintf(gettext("template
parse error: %s"), $@)."\n";
unlink $config;
next;
}
}
}
foreach my $line (@buffer) {
($package, $version, $template, $config)=split /\s/, $line;
if (defined $config && length $config && -e $config) {
debug user => "preconfiguring $package ($version)";
chmod(0755, $config) or
die sprintf(gettext("debconf: can't chmod: %s"), $!);
$frontend->default_title($package);
my $confmodule=make_confmodule($config, 'configure', $version);
apt-utils
When did apt-utils become mandatory? I just did an apt-get upgrade (in testing) and it died immediately after downloading packages with the message debconf: cannot preconfigure packages -- apt-utils is not installed E: Failure running script /usr/sbin/dpkg-preconfigure --apt || true Installing apt-utils fixed this, but I thought it was supposed to be optional. (No, I don't want to use it until it actually works. In theory, apt-utils is supposed to let you answer all the packages' questions up front. In practice, every question that I answer up front is asked again later, completely ignoring my previous answers. How is that supposed to be helpful?) -- That's not gibberish... It's Linux. - Byers, The Lone Gunmen Geek Code 3.12: GCS d? s+: a C++ UL$ P++>+++ L+++> E- W--(++) N+ o+ !K w--- O M- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t 5++ X+ R++ tv+ b+ DI D G e* h r y+
