Bug#803272: libreoffice-dev: apt-get dist-upgrade -u -f *HANGS* on libreoffice-dev 3a5.0.3~rc1-2
Dear René,
On 28/10/2015 16:28, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> notfound 803272 1:5.0.2-1
> found 803272 1:5.0.3~rc1-2
> severity 803272 important
> tag 803272 + confirmed
> retitle 803272 upgrade to 1:5.0.3~rc1-2 from previous versions slow with -dev-doc installed
> thanks
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 03:10:36PM +0100, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
>> Package: libreoffice-dev
>> Version: 1:5.0.2-1
>
> Wrong. See below. Use care when using this as this is represented in the
> bug graph.
I didn't specify anything. reportbug did. See the title of my bug report...
>> Severity: critical
>> Justification: breaks unrelated software
>
> I don't think this is critical. I don't even think this is a bug at all.
> See below.
I flagged it critical because I (thought that) I had a hosed apt-get,
which is definitely "other software".
> Don't overinflate bugs. And a bit of more research should be possible if
> you use testing.
>
>> 3143 pts/0 Ss 0:00 \_ bash
>> 3149 pts/0 S 0:00 | \_ sudo -i
>> 3178 pts/0 S 0:00 | \_ -bash
>> 19191 pts/0 S+ 0:09 | \_ apt-get dist-upgrade -u -f
>> 20570 pts/1 Ss+ 0:00 | \_ /usr/bin/dpkg --status-fd 107
>> --unpack --auto-deconfigure /var/cache/apt/archives/libreoffice-
>> dev_1%3a5.0.3~rc1
>
> Aha. So it was a upgrade to 1:5.0.3~rc1
As specified in the "Subject" field of my mail.
(then it got stripped, but I assume
> -2, as that migrated to testing shortly ago - I think yesterday). So you
> specified Version: wrong.
Again, I didn't fill the "Version" field, reportbug did.
>
>> 20616 pts/1 S+ 0:00 | \_ /bin/sh
>> /var/lib/dpkg/tmp.ci/preinst upgrade 1:5.0.2-1
>> 20617 pts/1 S+ 0:00 | \_ /bin/sh /usr/bin/dpkg-
>> maintscript-helper dir_to_symlink /usr/share/doc/libreoffice-dev
>> /usr/share/doc/l
>> 20625 pts/1 S+ 0:00 | \_ find /usr/share/doc
>> /libreoffice-dev -print0
>> 20626 pts/1 S+ 0:00 | \_ xargs -0 -n1 sh -c
>> ??package="$1" ??file="$2" ??if ! dpkg-query -L "$package" | grep -q -x "$file"
>
> That tree is big (especially if you have -dev-doc installed) and the find may
> take some time.
Is > 30 minutes kosher ? I never saw this...
> And that saifd, I don't have any influence on that find given
> it's dpkg-maintscript-helper (from dpkg!) doing it's job to convert a dir
> to a symlink. Which is needed in this upgrade and even if I reverted the
> doc linking needing this I still need to do this for intermediate versions
> in sid..
>
> If you looked whether the process(es) do something you would have seen that
> the find does it's job...
> Even installing -dev-doc takes a long time due to its sheer count of files.
>
> This is from stable:
> root@Cubie:/usr/share/doc/libreoffice-dev# du -hs && find . -print | wc -l
> 396M .
> 22200
>
> A upgrade from clean stable chroot + libreoffice + libreoffice-dev
> + libreoffice-dev-doc to sid works fine here, but yes, takes a while
> (this is even a armhf and a micro-SD card, so even more slow...)
>
> # time apt-get dist-upgrade
> [...]
> Preparing to unpack .../libreoffice-dev_1%3a5.0.3~rc1-2_armhf.deb ...
> <wait... there it runs dir_to_symlink which runs the find. The find and the
> apparent dpkg -L of each file found is sloooow...>
> <stopped caring to wait for it to finish and just decided to send the mail.>
That's probably what happened to me : I concluded to failure and
reported a bug.
I'll try to unhose my system and upgrade it overnight (old machine, but
that's what my employer wishes me to use...).
> Yeah, this defnitely is unfortunate and unexpected, but it's not a hang, dpkg
> does its job.
>
>> Versions of packages libreoffice-dev suggests:
>> ii libmythes-dev 2:1.2.4-1
>> ii libreoffice-dev-doc 1:5.0.2-1
>
> OK, now we at least now you *do* have a big tree under /usr/share/doc/libreoffice-dev/docs.
> As I thought.
>
> Regards,
Thanks for explanation.
May I suggest to have a warning added to tell the users that this
upgrade is unusually slow, especially if libreoffoce-dev-docs is also to
be installed-upgraded ? I might be the first user dumb enough to jump
from "slow upgrade" to "hosed", but I probably won't be alone...
Sincerely,
Emmanuel Charpentier
> Rene
>
Reply to: