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

Bug#11868: marked as done (dselect in serious need of rewriting)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Oct 1999 02:14:10 -0400
with message-id <19991010021410.E18835@lappy.djj.state.va.us>
and subject line some dpkg bug maintainence with permission from wichert
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

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

Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Aug 1997 02:29:26 +0000
Received: (qmail 12606 invoked from network); 5 Aug 1997 02:29:24 -0000
Received: from servo.qualcomm.com (
  by master.debian.org with SMTP; 5 Aug 1997 02:29:24 -0000
Received: (from karn@localhost) by servo.qualcomm.com (8.8.5/1.4/8.7.2/1.13) id TAA20899; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 19:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 19:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Phil Karn <karn@qualcomm.com>
Message-Id: <199708050229.TAA20899@servo.qualcomm.com>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: dselect in serious need of rewriting
Cc: karn@qualcomm.com

Package: dpkg
Version: all

The dselect program is in serious need of redesign and rewriting. It is
far too easy to trash your system with a single false keystroke, especially
when you accidentally select a package that conflicts with a whole slew
of other packages. For example, just now I accidentally uninstalled the
"ftp" option to dpkg, which effectively locks me out from fixing it over
the net (the FTP option should be absolutely standard in dpkg, and it
shouldn't depend on any other scripts -- it should be compiled into the

Other examples of dpkg/dselect braindamage include ignoring prerequisites
when installing a whole slew of files (e.g., upgrading from bo to hamm)
that either leave your system in an inconsistent, unusable state (e.g.,
when libc5 doesn't install correctly) or at the very least require you
to re-run the configuration step many times to take care of the prerequisites.

Received: (at 1037-done) by bugs.debian.org; 10 Oct 1999 06:12:48 +0000
Received: (qmail 18194 invoked from network); 10 Oct 1999 06:12:46 -0000
Received: from ppp28.ts1-3.newportnews.visi.net (HELO lappy.djj.state.va.us) (
  by master.debian.org with SMTP; 10 Oct 1999 06:12:46 -0000
Received: from bmc by lappy.djj.state.va.us with local (Exim 3.03 #1 (Debian))
	id 11aCFG-00038m-00; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 02:14:10 -0400
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 02:14:10 -0400
From: Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org>
To: 1685-done@bugs.debian.org, 16217-done@bugs.debian.org,
	10263-done@bugs.debian.org, 4074-done@bugs.debian.org,
Subject: some dpkg bug maintainence with permission from wichert
Message-ID: <19991010021410.E18835@lappy.djj.state.va.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Mutt/1.0pre2i

1685: dpkg-split command line parsing.
  My take on this, the options expected aren't in a compatible format,
  so it can't be made GNU style. Also the man page shows that the
  complained about format is expected. IMO, if it's documented as such,
  then it should be acceptible. GNU is not the endall argument format.

16217: prompting for clearing avail on updates in dselect
  dselect doesn't seem to do this anymore

10263: segfaults on upgrade
  Very old bug concerning libc5->libc6 upgrades. I don't think we have any
  way to really reproduce it, plus the reports show that the cause was
  possibly found from some dependencies, but the original poster never
  responded back.

4074: conffile's left behind
  Not a current problem with dpkg it seems

1037: dselect help screen
  Ian said he would fix this in the report when he released the C version of
  dpkg, that seems to have occured (bug report is vague on what the actual bug
  is, and attempts at clarifying have failed).

Ben....more to come

Reply to: