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

Bug#765357: marked as done (apt: fails to update if larger partial file exists)

Your message dated Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:07:29 +0200
with message-id <20141015140729.GB2695@crossbow>
and subject line Re: Bug#765357: apt: fails to update if larger partial file exists
has caused the Debian Bug report #765357,
regarding apt: fails to update if larger partial file exists
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
765357: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=765357
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: apt
Version: 0.9.7.9+deb7u2
Severity: normal

Dear Maintainer,
Had a partially downloaded Packages.gz from the stable conrib repo in /var/lib/apt/lists/
This file was larger than the current Packages.gz
I guess this is what made apt-get update do a request for Packages.gz which included the "Range: bytes=<currentsize>-"
Since the start of the range was beyond the end of the current version of the requested file,
the server responds with 416 "Requested Range Not Satisfiable".

apt-get then displays:
W: Failed to fetch http://ftp.no.debian.org/debian/dists/wheezy/contrib/source/Sources: 404  Not Found [IP: 128.39.3.170 80]

This is not correct. The returned error, from a tcpdump, was 416, and the correct behaviour would be to discard the
partial file and try again from scratch.

-- Package-specific info:

-- (no /etc/apt/preferences present) --


-- (/etc/apt/sources.list present, but not submitted) --


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.6
  APT prefers stable
  APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages apt depends on:
ii  debian-archive-keyring  2012.4
ii  gnupg                   1.4.12-7+deb7u6
ii  libapt-pkg4.12          0.9.7.9+deb7u2
ii  libc6                   2.13-38+deb7u4
ii  libgcc1                 1:4.7.2-5
ii  libstdc++6              4.7.2-5

apt recommends no packages.

Versions of packages apt suggests:
pn  apt-doc     <none>
ii  aptitude    0.6.8.2-1
ii  dpkg-dev    1.16.15
ii  python-apt  0.8.8.2
ii  xz-utils    5.1.1alpha+20120614-2

-- no debconf information

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Version: 0.9.12

Hi,

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 01:44:32PM +0200, Øyvind Hvidsten wrote:
> Had a partially downloaded Packages.gz from the stable conrib repo in /var/lib/apt/lists/
> This file was larger than the current Packages.gz
> I guess this is what made apt-get update do a request for Packages.gz which included the "Range: bytes=<currentsize>-"
> Since the start of the range was beyond the end of the current version of the requested file,
> the server responds with 416 "Requested Range Not Satisfiable".

Indeed your analyse is correct, this is what happened. Note though that
we also send an If-Range header which helps hidding this issues – at
least if the server we talk to supports it (as apt does automatically
the right thing™ then).

The issue is fixed in newer versions, which is why I am closing this
bugreport with this message, quoting the changelog:

apt (0.9.12) unstable; urgency=low
[…]
  * retry without partial data after a 416 response (Closes: 710924)
[…]
 -- Michael Vogt <mvo@debian.org>  Wed, 09 Oct 2013 22:39:41 +0200


It is git commit 331e8396ee5a4f2e7d276eddc54749b2a13dd789 in case you
want to look it up. The commit message also explains further why you get
a different error message later on. I /guess/ just from the diff this
could be backported to earlier versions if you feel like doing it, but
I made a lot of changes around that code piece in that timeframe and
could be very wrong as a result.

In other words: This bug will be gone with jessie.


Best regards

David Kalnischkies

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: