[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: install krita. Broken pioe. Do I need a plumber?



On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 12:19:57 +0100, Isaac Clerencia wrote:

> On Wednesday 01 February 2006 12:16, Scott wrote:
> > Isaac Clerencia wrote:
> > > The problem is that krita and digikam try to install the same file. I
> > > didn't noticed it as the file has been added to digikam in the last
> > > release. I will remove it from krita.
> > >
> > > Thank you for the report
> >
> > You're welcome.   But I'm still wondering about the plumber.........
> a pipe is a way of IPC (interprocess communication) in Unix.
> 
> In this case two programs were communicating through a pipe, then one of them 
> (dpkg) died because of the already present file, so the other process found a 
> "broken pipe".

Actually I'm with Scott on this.  I understand your explanation of the
error, but I've always thought it should be possible for dpkg (apt-*)
to output a more helpful message ... more helpful for the uninitiated,
that is.

When this error first happened for me I was baffled by the meaning
until I googled for the various error texts and found out what a
common situation this is while packaging is in a state of flux.

Would it not be possible for dpkg (or apt-get, etc.) to do something
like this :

Unpacking replacement krita ...
dpkg: error processing 
/var/cache/apt/archives/krita_1%3a1.4.90.1-1_i386.deb (--unpack):
  trying to overwrite `/usr/share/mimelnk/image/x-raw.desktop', which
is also in package digikam
dpkg-deb: subprocess paste killed by signal ( *Broken pipe* )
Errors were encountered while processing:
  /var/cache/apt/archives/krita_1%3a1.4.90.1-1_i386.deb
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
=============================================================
Sorry - the contents of package 'krita' are incompatible with
the files already on your system.  Please report this error
to the creator of the package.
=============================================================

In fact, couldn't the message even dig the email address of the
relevant packager out of the deb and display that too ?

I realise this would be redundant for long-time users, but still, in
the interests of bringing Debian to the masses ...

Just my 2p ... anyone else ?
Worth making a feature request (bug against dpkg) ?

Nick Boyce
Bristol, UK
--
ActiveX ?  Just say 'No'



Reply to: