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

Bug#766758: apt: does not process pending triggers



Hi!

On Wed, 2014-10-29 at 18:42:09 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2014-10-29 17:41:25 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Control: retitle -1 apt: does not process pending triggers
> > Control: reassign -1 apt
> > Control: affects -1 dpkg
> > 
> > This should probably be considered an RC bug, but I'll let the apt
> > maintainers deal with that.
> 
> Note that aptitude has the same problem.

A fix in apt would also fix any such issue in aptitude AFAICS:

,---
# aptitude reinstall libpipeline1 wget
[…]
(Reading database ... 232896 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to unpack .../libpipeline1_1.4.0-1_amd64.deb ...
Unpacking libpipeline1:amd64 (1.4.0-1) over (1.4.0-1) ...
Preparing to unpack .../archives/wget_1.16-1_amd64.deb ...
Unpacking wget (1.16-1) over (1.16-1) ...
Processing triggers for install-info (5.2.0.dfsg.1-5) ...
Setting up libpipeline1:amd64 (1.4.0-1) ...
Setting up wget (1.16-1) ...
Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.19-12) ...

# dpkg --audit
The following packages have been triggered, but the trigger processing
has not yet been done.  Trigger processing can be requested using
dselect or dpkg --configure --pending (or dpkg --triggers-only):
 man-db               on-line manual pager

# dpkg --configure --pending
Processing triggers for man-db (2.7.0.2-2) ...

# aptitude -o DPkg::TriggersPending=true reinstall libpipeline1 wget
[…]
(Reading database ... 232896 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to unpack .../libpipeline1_1.4.0-1_amd64.deb ...
Unpacking libpipeline1:amd64 (1.4.0-1) over (1.4.0-1) ...
Preparing to unpack .../archives/wget_1.16-1_amd64.deb ...
Unpacking wget (1.16-1) over (1.16-1) ...
Processing triggers for install-info (5.2.0.dfsg.1-5) ...
Setting up libpipeline1:amd64 (1.4.0-1) ...
Setting up wget (1.16-1) ...
Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.19-12) ...
Processing triggers for man-db (2.7.0.2-2) ...
`---

Thanks,
Guillem


Reply to: