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 , debian-bugs@pixar.com Resent-From: Ian Jackson Resent-To: debian-devel@pixar.com Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 23:47:42 GMT Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk X-Debian-PR-Package: ftp site X-Debian-PR-Keywords: Received: via spool for debian-bugs; Wed, 20 Sep 1995 23:47:42 GMT Received: with rfc822 via encapsulated-mail; Wed, 20 Sep 1995 23:47:27 GMT 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 (Debian /\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.33); Wed, 20 Sep 95 23:10 BST Message-Id: Date: Wed, 20 Sep 95 23:10 BST From: Ian Jackson To: Debian bugs submission address 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 Subject: Bug#1402: Acknowledgement (was: `Packages' file doesn't contain `Provides' fields !!!!) In-Reply-To: References: 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: Resent-Sender: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk X-Debian-PR-Package: ftp site X-Debian-PR-Keywords: Received: via spool for debian-bugs; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 18:33:02 GMT Received: with rfc822 via encapsulated-mail; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 18:30:02 GMT Received: from pixar.com by mongo.pixar.com with smtp (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0svqMT-0006fFC; Thu, 21 Sep 95 11:28 PDT Received: from hammer.thor.cam.ac.uk by pixar.com with SMTP id AA22372 (5.67b/IDA-1.5 for debian-bugs-pipe@mongo.pixar.com); Thu, 21 Sep 1995 11:28:22 -0700 Received: by hammer.thor.cam.ac.uk (Smail-3.1.29.0 #77) id m0svqMK-000JfBC; Thu, 21 Sep 95 19:28 BST Message-Id: 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: References: 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: References: 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 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: 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 (Debian /\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.33); Wed, 20 Sep 95 23:10 BST Message-Id: Date: Wed, 20 Sep 95 23:10 BST From: Ian Jackson To: Debian bugs submission address 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 Subject: Bug#1402 acknowledged by developer (was: `Packages' file doesn't contain `Provides' fields !!!!) References: In-Reply-To: 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