Bug#620958: dpkg outputs tons of new warning messages with..

Sven-Haegar Koch · External Since: Apr 05, 2006 Posts: 14

Package: dpkg
Version: 1.16.0.1
Severity: normal

Since the 1.16.0 update dpkg outputs a ton of new warning messages for each
run (multiple times for one apt-get dist-upgrade).

Example:

aurora:~# dpkg -l
dpkg-query: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 301 package 'libmimelib1':
missing architecture
dpkg-query: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 317 package 'libgal19':
missing architecture
dpkg-query: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 1120 package 'gimp1.2':
missing architecture
dpkg-query: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 2659 package 'mesag3+ggi':
missing architecture
dpkg-query: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 3515 package 'libmagick5.5.7':
missing architecture
dpkg-query: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 3537 package 'libmagick5.5.4':
missing architecture
....
(all together around 600 more lines of output)

These seem all to only affect packages long removed, but not purged.

This system has been installed years ago using something pre-woody, and
since then keept uptoday with unstable, and moved from one physical machine
to the next without a reinstall.

When
aurora:~# dpkg -i ...something.deb
....the same "missing architecture" warnings as above, in addition:
dpkg: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/available' near line 33441 package 'am-utils':
'Replaces' field, reference to 'amd': error in version: version number does not start with digit
dpkg: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/available' near line 33444 package 'am-utils':
'Conflicts' field, reference to 'amd': error in version: version number does not start with digit
dpkg: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/available' near line 99587 package 'wmnetselect':
'Suggests' field, reference to 'mozilla': error in version: version number does not start with digit
dpkg: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/available' near line 115332 package 'tac-plus':
error in Version string 'F4.0.4.alpha-10': version number does not start with digit
dpkg: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/available' near line 189000 package 'epic4-script-thirdeye':
'Depends' field, reference to 'epic4': error in version: version number does not start with digit
dpkg: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/available' near line 223197 package 'cnews':
error in Version string 'cr.g7-31': version number does not start with digit
dpkg: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/available' near line 282794 package 'request-tracker1':
'Conflicts' field, reference to 'rt': error in version: version number does not start with digit
dpkg: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/available' near line 300193 package 'epic4':
'Conflicts' field, reference to 'epic4-help': error in version: version number does not start with digit
(Reading database ... 284590 files and directories currently installed.)

-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable'), (101, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.38-sdinet2-aurora (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF- Cool

Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

Versions of packages dpkg depends on:
ii coreutils 8.5-1 GNU core utilities
ii libbz2-1.0 1.0.5-6 high-quality block-sorting file co
ii libc6 2.11.2-11 Embedded GNU C Library: Shared lib
ii libselinux1 2.0.98-1 SELinux runtime shared libraries
ii xz-utils 5.0.0-2 XZ-format compression utilities
ii zlib1g 1:1.2.3.4.dfsg-3 compression library - runtime

dpkg recommends no packages.

Versions of packages dpkg suggests:
ii apt 0.8.13.1 Advanced front-end for dpkg

-- debconf-show failed

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Raphael Hertzog · External Since: May 28, 2005 Posts: 688

Hello,

On Tue, 05 Apr 2011, Sven-Haegar Koch wrote:
> aurora:~# dpkg -l
> dpkg-query: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 301 package 'libmimelib1':
> missing architecture
[...]
> These seem all to only affect packages long removed, but not purged.

Can you show us the entry in the status file for one of those packages?

Packages which are in status "config-files" (i.e. removed but not purged)
should have all their status information including the Architecture field..

> dpkg: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/available' near line 33441 package 'am-utils':
> 'Replaces' field, reference to 'amd': error in version: version number does not start with digit

Clean up the cruft in the available file by running "dpkg --clear-avail"
and you'll get rid of those.

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English)
▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français)

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

Sven-Haegar Koch · External Since: Apr 05, 2006 Posts: 14

On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Raphael Hertzog wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On Tue, 05 Apr 2011, Sven-Haegar Koch wrote:
> > aurora:~# dpkg -l
> > dpkg-query: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' near line 301 package 'libmimelib1':
> > missing architecture
> [...]
> > These seem all to only affect packages long removed, but not purged.
>
> Can you show us the entry in the status file for one of those packages?
>
> Packages which are in status "config-files" (i.e. removed but not purged)
> should have all their status information including the Architecture field.

Two examples:

Package: libmimelib1
Status: deinstall ok config-files
Priority: optional
Section: libs
Installed-Size: 264
Maintainer: Christopher L Cheney
Source: kdenetwork
Version: 4:3.1.4-1
Config-Version: 4:3.1.4-1
Provides: libmimelib
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.3.2-1), libgcc1 (>= 1:3.3.1-1), libstdc++5 (>= 1:3.3.1-1)
Conflicts: libmimelib
Description: KDE network mime library
KDE is a powerful Open Source graphical desktop environment
for Unix workstations. It combines ease of use, contemporary
functionality, and outstanding graphical design with the
technological superiority of the Unix operating system.
.
This library is used by several KDE applications to handle mime types.
.
This package is part of the official KDE network module.

Package: epic4
Status: deinstall ok config-files
Priority: optional
Section: net
Installed-Size: 944
Maintainer: Joseph Carter
Version: 1:1.0.1-1
Config-Version: 1:1.0.1-1
Provides: irc
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.2-2), libncurses5 (>= 5.2.20010310-1), epic4-help
Suggests: epic4-script
Conflicts: epic4-dbg
Conffiles:
/etc/epic4/epic4.irc 1671c2de63dcddc761ff2e3cc8ade8cb
/etc/epic4/servers 90e770be749c418b27a2a1ba19536f71
/etc/epic4/epic4.irc 8ef1b800ab08b734e025cd81aa25df6a
/etc/epic4/servers 90e770be749c418b27a2a1ba19536f71
Description: epic irc client, version 4
epic4 is an irc client based on ircII. It is primarily suited to users who
wish to write their own irc scripts or have irc scripts written by others.
.
Previous versions of epic were 100% compatible with ircII 2.8.2, though
this is no longer the case. Instead we've taken a new direction and chosen
to find places where compatibility with ircII is undesirable and fix them.
No gratuitous incompatibilities have been added, though many new features
have been.

> > dpkg: warning: parsing file '/var/lib/dpkg/available' near line 33441 package 'am-utils':
> > 'Replaces' field, reference to 'amd': error in version: version number does not start with digit
>
> Clean up the cruft in the available file by running "dpkg --clear-avail"
> and you'll get rid of those.

This helped, and removed all the problems with /var/lib/dpkg/available
(but not with the /var/lib/dpkg/status warnings).

Thanks,

c'ya
sven-haegar

--
Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.
- Ben F.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

Raphael Hertzog · External Since: May 28, 2005 Posts: 688

Hello,

On Tue, 05 Apr 2011, Sven-Haegar Koch wrote:
> Package: libmimelib1
> Status: deinstall ok config-files

I did some code archeology to try to find out an explanation of why dpkg
would have dropped that field.

And I found it: http://bugs.debian.org/228253

It got "fixed" by this commit:

commit 2ef42b027e4267432a41343e28f102b1dae668d2
Author: Scott James Remnant
Date: Mon Mar 8 18:37:36 2004 +0000

Prior to this, the architecture field was not stored at all in the status
file (in fact it was explicitly dropped by the parsedb function).

The change is very old, not many users will be affected by this.

Guillem, what do you think? Should we silence the warning due to this?

Sven, in the mean time I suggest you do "aptitude purge ~c" to clean up
all those packages and you will get rid of those warnings (but you'll
loose the configuration files for those old uninstalled packages).

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English)
▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français)

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

Jonathan Nieder · External Since: Feb 26, 2009 Posts: 539

Hi,

Raphael Hertzog wrote:

> The change is very old, not many users will be affected by this.
>
> Guillem, what do you think? Should we silence the warning due to this?

I am not Guillem Smile

but I think the ideal thing would be a way for the
user to (perhaps explicitly) update the status db by inserting an
architecture. Available seems less of a problem given the workaround
"dpkg --clear-avail"; in an ideal world "apt-get update" and "dselect
update" would be taught[1] to remove stale entries, though.

Especially for the sake of cross-upgrade support, the architecture
field seems kind of important.

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/478970 and especially
http://bugs.debian.org/551638

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

Raphael Hertzog · External Since: May 28, 2005 Posts: 688

On Wed, 06 Apr 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> I am not Guillem Smile

but I think the ideal thing would be a way for the
> user to (perhaps explicitly) update the status db by inserting an
> architecture.

Why ?

1/ It concerns packages which have not been touched since 2004 or packages
which were installed before 2004 and got removed but not purged since then
2/ We can't invent the value to put in Architecture

> Available seems less of a problem given the workaround
> "dpkg --clear-avail"; in an ideal world "apt-get update" and "dselect
> update" would be taught[1] to remove stale entries, though.

dselect update sometimes does depending on the "method" configured.

Right now, it serves no purpose for apt-get to update the available file.

> Especially for the sake of cross-upgrade support, the architecture
> field seems kind of important.

Which is why we're requiring it now and why we're more verbose.

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English)
▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français)

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Jonathan Nieder · External Since: Feb 26, 2009 Posts: 539

Hi,

Raphael Hertzog wrote:

> 1/ It concerns packages which have not been touched since 2004 or packages
> which were installed before 2004 and got removed but not purged since then

I did say "ideally". I can understand if you're not motivated to work
on it.

(That said, iiuc the above is not so rare of a usage pattern. Some
people never purge packages until they have to, to save some trouble
reconfiguring when it is time to install again later.)

> 2/ We can't invent the value to put in Architecture

It seems likely this has been covered before, but just in case: why
not put in the native architecture for already-installed, ancient
packages?

If I am reading the multiarch spec correctly, i386 packages cannot
satisfy dependencies from amd64 packages without a "Multiarch" field,
and i386 packages are not co-installable with other packages of the
same name without a "Multiarch" field. So although this would be
technically inaccurate (some of the ancient packages were presumably
Architecture: all), I think it should be safe.

> dselect update sometimes does depending on the "method" configured.
>
> Right now, it serves no purpose for apt-get to update the available file.

Actually I'm a bit puzzled by the behavior. sync-available (from
dctrl-tools) and the apt method's "update" script call
"apt-cache dumpavail" to write a new available file and
"dpkg --update-avail" to use it, ignoring the old one. So why are
people needing to run "dpkg --clear-avail"?

Would it be possible in the long term for dpkg to stop caring about
"available" altogether (leaving it to dselect)?

>> Especially for the sake of cross-upgrade support, the architecture
>> field seems kind of important.
>
> Which is why we're requiring it now and why we're more verbose.

Yes, and thanks for that. Without a warning to point out these old
package records, it would be a lot harder to figure out what to do
about them.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Raphael Hertzog · External Since: May 28, 2005 Posts: 688

On Wed, 06 Apr 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > 2/ We can't invent the value to put in Architecture
>
> It seems likely this has been covered before, but just in case: why
> not put in the native architecture for already-installed, ancient
> packages?

It could be Architecture: all instead of the native architecture. And
some packages might have been installed with --force-architecture.

> > dselect update sometimes does depending on the "method" configured.
> >
> > Right now, it serves no purpose for apt-get to update the available file.
>
> Actually I'm a bit puzzled by the behavior. sync-available (from
> dctrl-tools) and the apt method's "update" script call
> "apt-cache dumpavail" to write a new available file and
> "dpkg --update-avail" to use it, ignoring the old one. So why are
> people needing to run "dpkg --clear-avail"?

Because people don't use dselect and the available file just keeps a log
of formerly installed packages in that case. And the "ftp" method of
dselect runs --clear-avail optionnaly and uses --merge-avail.

> Would it be possible in the long term for dpkg to stop caring about
> "available" altogether (leaving it to dselect)?

Yes, it's more or less the plan. We've just changed dpkg to not
parse/write it for most of the commands and I wanted to discuss with
guillem why he kept it for plain package install (archivefiles() still
passes the available flag to modstatdb_init).

See commits fb49e131ef32039277c538f759ab19c1ff22e8fd,
9c01b373009ac462afbdb9375abd2c7b9abc19d5.

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English)
▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français)

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Guillem Jover · External Since: Nov 13, 2004 Posts: 574

Hi!

On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 08:04:58 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > Would it be possible in the long term for dpkg to stop caring about
> > "available" altogether (leaving it to dselect)?
>
> Yes, it's more or less the plan. We've just changed dpkg to not
> parse/write it for most of the commands and I wanted to discuss with
> guillem why he kept it for plain package install (archivefiles() still
> passes the available flag to modstatdb_init).
>
> See commits fb49e131ef32039277c538f759ab19c1ff22e8fd,
> 9c01b373009ac462afbdb9375abd2c7b9abc19d5.

The changes I introduced were intended to not change current
behaviour, that's why they still parse the available file in some
cases. That's the case for several query commands, for install it's
because it has always recorded the newly installed package in the
available file too.

The possibility to stop doing that is still pending a discussion with
the frontend developers, which I have queued with several others for
after I've cleared up some pending things first.

thanks,
guillem

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org