Debian bug report logs - #1402, boring messages

Message sent to debian-devel@pixar.com:

Subject: Bug#1402: `Packages' file doesn't contain `Provides' fields !!!!
Reply-To: Ian Jackson <iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk>, debian-bugs@pixar.com
Resent-From: Ian Jackson <iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk>
Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com
Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 23:47:42 GMT
Resent-Message-ID: <debian-bugs-handler.1402.B09202347300@pixar.com>
Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk
Message-Id: <m0svXM1-0002ZwA@chiark.al.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 95 23:10 BST
From: Ian Jackson <iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk>
To: Debian bugs submission address <debian-bugs@pixar.com>
Precedence: air-mail

Package: ftp site
Version: Packages file dated 07:59 GMT, 19th September

The Packages file on the FTP site does not contain any of the Provides
fields from the packages.

This completely breaks dselect's conflict/dependency system - many
dependencies are left unsatisfied or are satisfied by only a few
packages, because dselect doesn't see the Provides fields.

This absolutely MUST be fixed WELL before the release, so that we can
test dselect properly.

In general it would appear that pdpkg, the program used to generate
the file, discards data it does not understand, rather than preserving
it.  GRRRRR!!!!  This will also break when packages start to use the
new names for the related-package fields, namely Suggests (was
Optional) and Recommends (was Recommended).

Ian.

Message sent:

From: iwj10@thor.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
To: Ian Jackson <iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Bug#1402: Acknowledgement (was: `Packages' file doesn't contain `Provides' fields !!!!)
In-Reply-To: <m0svXM1-0002ZwA@chiark.al.cl.cam.ac.uk>
References: <m0svXM1-0002ZwA@chiark.al.cl.cam.ac.uk>

Thank you for the problem report you have sent regarding Debian GNU/Linux.
This is an automatically generated reply, to let you know your message has
been received.  It is being forwarded to the developers' mailing list for
their attention; they will reply in due course.

If you wish to submit further information on your problem, please send
it to debian-bugs@pixar.com, but please ensure that the Subject
line of your message starts with "Bug#1402" or "Re: Bug#1402" so that
we can identify it as relating to the same problem.

Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message,
unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system.

Ian Jackson
(maintainer, debian-bugs)

Message sent to debian-devel@pixar.com:

Subject: Bug#1402: New version of pdpkg, new Packages file
Reply-To: iwj10@thor.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson), debian-bugs@pixar.com
Resent-From: iwj10@thor.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com
Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 18:33:02 GMT
Resent-Message-ID: <debian-bugs-handler.1402.B09211830050@pixar.com>
Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk
Message-Id: <m0svqMK-000JfBC@hammer.thor.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 19:28 BST
From: iwj10@thor.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
To: debian-bugs@pixar.com

I finally got fed up with the deficiences of `pdpkg', and have written
a new version.  I have put it in project/experimental/npdpkg.

You will also find there a file `nPackages' which is its output.  I'd
like people with recent versions of dpkg to try downloading it and
using it with the Update option from the dselect menu (use Access to
specify where it is) or using dpkg --merge-avail, and then try seeing
if the dependency and conflict screens dselect produces make any kind
of sense.

Ian M.: the script takes two arguments.  The first is the name of the
`binary' directory containing the .deb files; the second is the name
of an `noverrides' file in a slightly improved format - there is an
example in project/experimental/npdpkg.  There is also an `over2nover'
script that converts one to the other.

The script uses `find' to find the files, and then extracts the
control information using dpkg-deb -I foo.deb control.  It puts
together the information from all the available files, and then
overrides the Priority, Section and possibly Maintainer from the
override file (the fields are in that order, separated by spaces or
tabs).  It's supposed to check that the .deb files are in the
directories corresponding to their Section.  It writes the new
Packages file to stdout.

It *doesn't* do a full syntax check on the Packages file which
results.  It would be good to do so, but that would require
modifications to the dpkg source that I don't have time to make at the
moment (the dpkg source tree contains the library for parsing Packages
files, control files, &c).  In any case, it's very hard to make new
packages that are broken without noticing, because dpkg-deb will moan
at build time.

To integrate it into your nightly cron job you should write a script
that has it build the new Packages file and then uses mv to do an
atomic overwrite.  Don't do
  rm -f Packages
  mv Packages.new Packages
because then there's a moment when no Packages file is available, and
by sod's law this will happen when a mirror site gets the directory
listing.  Instead, do
  mv -f Packages.new Packages
  rm -f binary/Packages.new
  mv -f binary/Packages.new binary/Packages
  rm -f ms-dos/Packages.new
  mv -f ms-dos/Packages.new ms-dos/Packages
or whatever is appropriate.

Don't forget the non-free and contrib directories.

dselect would prefer the Packages file to be in the `binary'
directory for each area (ie, /debian/binary/Packages,
/debian/contrib/binary/Packages, /debian/non-free/binary/Packages);
whether you put an additional copy of each just above the first is up
to you.  Please do put in a README saying that you need a different
Packages file for each area.

Ian.

Message sent:

From: iwj10@thor.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
To: iwj10@thor.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
Subject: Bug#1402: Info received (was Bug#1402: New version of pdpkg, new Packages file)
In-Reply-To: <m0svqMK-000JfBC@hammer.thor.cam.ac.uk>
References: <m0svqMK-000JfBC@hammer.thor.cam.ac.uk>

Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report.  It has been forwarded to the developers to
accompany the original report.

If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please do the same thing again: send it to debian-bugs@pixar.com, ensuring
that the Subject line starts with "Bug#1402" or "Re: Bug#1402" so that
we can identify it as relating to the same problem.

Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message,
unless you wish to report a problem with the bug-tracking system.

Ian Jackson
(maintainer, debian-bugs)

Message sent:

From: iwj10@thor.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
To: imurdock@debian.org (Ian Murdock)
In-Reply-To: <m0t3NSR-0001dLC@imagine.imaginit.com>
References: <m0t3NSR-0001dLC@imagine.imaginit.com> <m0svXM1-0002ZwA@chiark.al.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Bug#1402: marked as done (was: `Packages' file doesn't contain `Provides' fields !!!!)

Your message dated Thu, 12 Oct 95 08:13 EST
with message-id <m0t3NSR-0001dLC@imagine.imaginit.com>
and subject line Bug#1402:
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.

It is your now responsibility to ensure that the bug report is dealt
with.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I'm
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Ian Jackson
(maintainer, debian-bugs)

Received: with rfc822 via encapsulated-mail; Wed, 20 Sep 1995 23:47:27 GMT
From cus.cam.ac.uk!iwj10 Wed Sep 20 16:45:46 1995
Return-Path: <iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk>
Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0svYpm-000G5gA; Wed, 20 Sep 95 16:45 PDT
Received: from bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk by pixar.com with SMTP id AA03191
  (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for debian-bugs-pipe@mongo.pixar.com); Wed, 20 Sep 1995 16:45:27 -0700
Received: by bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk
	(Smail-3.1.29.0 #36) id m0svYpd-000C0ZA; Thu, 21 Sep 95 00:45 BST
Received: by chiark
	id <m0svXM1-0002ZwA@chiark.al.cl.cam.ac.uk>
	(Debian /\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.33); Wed, 20 Sep 95 23:10 BST
Message-Id: <m0svXM1-0002ZwA@chiark.al.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 95 23:10 BST
From: Ian Jackson <iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk>
To: Debian bugs submission address <debian-bugs@pixar.com>
Subject: `Packages' file doesn't contain `Provides' fields !!!!
Precedence: air-mail

Package: ftp site
Version: Packages file dated 07:59 GMT, 19th September

The Packages file on the FTP site does not contain any of the Provides
fields from the packages.

This completely breaks dselect's conflict/dependency system - many
dependencies are left unsatisfied or are satisfied by only a few
packages, because dselect doesn't see the Provides fields.

This absolutely MUST be fixed WELL before the release, so that we can
test dselect properly.

In general it would appear that pdpkg, the program used to generate
the file, discards data it does not understand, rather than preserving
it.  GRRRRR!!!!  This will also break when packages start to use the
new names for the related-package fields, namely Suggests (was
Optional) and Recommends (was Recommended).

Ian.

Message sent:

From: iwj10@thor.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
To: Ian Jackson <iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Bug#1402 acknowledged by developer (was: `Packages' file doesn't contain `Provides' fields !!!!)
References: <m0t3NSR-0001dLC@imagine.imaginit.com> <m0svXM1-0002ZwA@chiark.al.cl.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <m0svXM1-0002ZwA@chiark.al.cl.cam.ac.uk>

This is an automatic notification regarding your bug report.

Responsibility for it has been taken by one of the developers, namely
imurdock@debian.org (Ian Murdock).

You should be hearing from them with a substantive response shortly, if
you have not already done so.  If not, please contact them directly,
or email debian-bugs@pixar.com or myself.

Ian Jackson
(maintainer, debian-bugs)

Ian Jackson / iwj10@thor.cam.ac.uk, with the debian-bugs tracking mechanism

This page last modified 07:43:01 GMT Wed 01 Nov