On Tue, 05 Apr 2011, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 07:48:58 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Apr 2011, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > The strict parser should only take effect on anything that's not the
> > > status or the available files and --compare-versions.
> >
> > Not
Your message dated Tue, 05 Apr 2011 06:03:06 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#620679: fixed in dpkg 1.16.0.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #620679,
regarding --unpack: error setting timestamps of `/usr/lib/libperl.so.dpkg-new':
Function not implemented
to be marked as done.
This mea
Your message dated Tue, 05 Apr 2011 06:03:06 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#620679: fixed in dpkg 1.16.0.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #620679,
regarding dpkg 1.16.0 depends on linux kernel >=2.6.22
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt w
Your message dated Tue, 05 Apr 2011 06:03:06 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#620636: fixed in dpkg 1.16.0.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #620636,
regarding problems with dpkg 1.16.0
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 07:48:58 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Apr 2011, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > The strict parser should only take effect on anything that's not the
> > status or the available files and --compare-versions.
>
> Not sure I parse your sentence correctly, but
> --compare-
Hi,
Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 23:57:39 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> I'd be happy to work on a fix to this that fits nicely with dpkg's
>> design and is agreeable to people. Any hints or pointers?
>
> Sorry, I guess I don't follow, a fix for what? We are talking about
> jus
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011, Guillem Jover wrote:
> The strict parser should only take effect on anything that's not the
> status or the available files and --compare-versions.
Not sure I parse your sentence correctly, but
--compare-versions uses the strict parser:
$ dpkg --compare-versions foo2 eq foo2
Hi!
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 23:57:39 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > He's using dselect apparently, so it's probably dpkg-query --predep which
> > is spitting out those warnings (it's the only dpkg-query command that
> > parses the available file).
Actually, there's other
Hi,
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> He's using dselect apparently, so it's probably dpkg-query --predep which
> is spitting out those warnings (it's the only dpkg-query command that
> parses the available file).
Ah, that makes sense.
I'd be happy to work on a fix to this that fits nicely with dpkg's
d
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> severity 620880 serious
Bug #620880 [dpkg] --unpack: error setting timestamps of
`/usr/lib/libperl.so.dpkg-new': Function not implemented
Bug #620679 [dpkg] dpkg 1.16.0 depends on linux kernel >=2.6.22
Severity set to 'serious' from 'important'
severity 620679 important
forcemerge 620679 620880
quit
Hi Thorsten,
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> In a sid chroot, just now:
>
> tg@frozenfish:~ $ sudo apt-get --purge dist-upgrade
[...]
> Unpacking replacement libperl-dev ...
> dpkg: error processing
> /var/cache/pbuilder/aptcache-debian/libperl-d
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> severity 620679 important
Bug #620679 [dpkg] dpkg 1.16.0 depends on linux kernel >=2.6.22
Severity set to 'important' from 'normal'
> forcemerge 620679 620880
Bug#620679: dpkg 1.16.0 depends on linux kernel >=2.6.22
Bug#620880: --unpack: error se
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.16.0
Severity: important
In a sid chroot, just now:
tg@frozenfish:~ $ sudo apt-get --purge dist-upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade... Done
The following NEW packages will be installed:
li
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Wait a second. I'm not up to speed on the exact design, but such
> widelands versions really _were_ in the archive once (according to
> snapshot.debian.org). And this is about dpkg-query looking through
> the "available" file, not "dpkg -i". Are you
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Gordon Haverland wrote:
Sorry, sloppy of me. The quoted text is by Raphaël, not Gordon, for
those who were wondering what had happened to the world. :).
>> None of those packages are official Debian packages. I suggest you get in
>> touch with the providers of those pack
Gordon Haverland wrote:
> None of those packages are official Debian packages. I suggest you get in
> touch with the providers of those packages so that they update them
> accordingly.
>
> As noted, it's not a bug but a deliberate change.
Wait a second. I'm not up to speed on the exact design, b
> "RH" == Raphael Hertzog writes:
RH> On Mon, 04 Apr 2011, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
>> What do you want me to do, remove my precious obsolete mysql-doc
>> package?
>>
>> That or face the rest of my life with those warnings?
RH> Yes. Or get that documentation properly packaged.
It is an obs
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
> What do you want me to do, remove my precious obsolete mysql-doc
> package?
>
> That or face the rest of my life with those warnings?
Yes. Or get that documentation properly packaged.
(Or edit /var/lib/dpkg/status to add the missing field if you r
I did do dpkg --clear-avail
But still for _installed obsolete packages_:
# aptitude purge libexempi3
The following packages will be REMOVED:
libexempi3{ap}
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
Need to get 0 B of archives. After unpacking 1,040 kB will be freed.
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> found 604241 1.16.0
Bug #604241 [dpkg] dpkg complains on missing architecture entries for removed
packages of oldoldoldstable
Bug Marked as found in versions dpkg/1.16.0.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistanc
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011, Gordon Haverland wrote:
> In terms of the kernels I compiled myself, they were named
> according to the instructions that were present at one time for
> kernel-package. The README.gz in /usr/share/doc/kernel-package
> still shows version strings that are not strictly numeri
Your message dated Mon, 4 Apr 2011 14:10:12 +0200
with message-id <20110404121011.gc25...@rivendell.home.ouaza.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#620699: dpkg-query: version string does not start with
digit
has caused the Debian Bug report #620699,
regarding dpkg-query: version string does not start wi
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> # dpkg-parsechangelog fails
> reassign 597689 dpkg-dev
Bug #597689 [libparse-debianchangelog-perl] Build fails on new 5.12.2 perl build
Bug reassigned from package 'libparse-debianchangelog-perl' to 'dpkg-dev'.
Bug No longer marked as found in ver
Hello.
On April 4, 2011, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
> On 03.04.11 Gordon Haverland (ghave...@materialisations.com)
> wrote:
> > I normally compile my own kernels. dpkg-query is giving
> > errors on these self-compiled kernels. (newmain.1 and
> > newmain.2) are the specific strings causing problems.
>
On 03.04.11 Gordon Haverland (ghave...@materialisations.com) wrote:
Hi,
> I normally compile my own kernels. dpkg-query is giving errors on
> these self-compiled kernels. (newmain.1 and newmain.2) are the
> specific strings causing problems.
>
This could be an intended change:
dpkg (1.16.0) u
25 matches
Mail list logo
