Re: dpkg --build broken?
Hi,
At Thu, 9 Sep 1999 00:46:05 -0400,
Hugo Haas <hugo@debian.org> wrote:
> I updated my system (lastest libc, etc) and found the following problem:
> 'dpkg --build' doesn't record the correct path.
>
> 'dpkg --contents' gives:
>
> drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 1999-09-09 00:25:49 ./usr/
> drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 1999-09-09 00:25:46 ./usr/X11R6/
> drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 1999-09-09 00:25:39 ./usr/X11R6/bin/
> [..]
>
> instead of:
>
> drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 1999-09-09 00:25:49 usr/
> drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 1999-09-09 00:25:46 usr/X11R6/
> drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 1999-09-09 00:25:39 usr/X11R6/bin/
> [..]
>
> Am I the only one having this problem?
Maybe, this is the same reason that lintian will give the errors:
tar: control: Not found in archive
tar: Error exit delayed from previous errors
internal error: broken input pipe for unpacking
As I checked the lintian, `ar p foo.deb control.tar.gz | tar xfzO - control'
in /usr/share/lintian/lib/util.pl failed because control.tar.gz looks like
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 1999-09-09 12:09:42 ./
-rw-r--r-- root/root 38 1999-09-09 12:09:28 ./shlibs
-rwxr-xr-x root/root 886 1999-09-09 12:09:28 ./postinst
-rwxr-xr-x root/root 380 1999-09-09 12:09:29 ./preinst
-rwxr-xr-x root/root 268 1999-09-09 12:09:29 ./prerm
-rwxr-xr-x root/root 676 1999-09-09 12:09:29 ./postrm
-rw-r--r-- root/root 859 1999-09-09 12:09:42 ./md5sums
-rw-r--r-- root/root 782 1999-09-09 12:09:41 ./control
It can be fixed by this patch:
--- /usr/share/lintian/lib/util.pl.old Thu Sep 9 13:57:11 1999
+++ /usr/share/lintian/lib/util.pl Thu Sep 9 13:57:31 1999
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@
# `dpkg-deb -f $file' is very slow. Instead, we use ar and tar.
pipeline_open(CONTROL,
(sub { exec 'ar', 'p', $file, 'control.tar.gz' }),
- (sub { exec 'tar', 'xfzO', '-', 'control' }))
+ (sub { exec 'tar', 'xfzO', '-', './control' }))
or fail("cannot fork to unpack $file: $!\n");
my @data = parse_dpkg_control();
close(CONTROL) or fail("broken input pipe for unpacking $file: $!");
Anyway, I think this is tar's bug.
Regards,
Fumitoshi UKAI
Reply to: