FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux Pacman Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-18-2011, 10:55 AM
Lukas Fleischer
 
Default SyncFirst and dependencies

Hi,

I'm not really sure if this actually is a bug or intended behaviour but
upgrading pacman man my freshly installed system with [testing] enabled
just broke pacman:

$ pacman
pacman: error while loading shared libraries: liblzma.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

After some investigation, I figured out that "liblzma.so" is part of
xz-utils which was renamed to "xz" sometime ago. When doing the first
full system upgrade, pacman asked me to upgrade itself, first. As
"SyncFirst" packages seem to be pulled in without dependency resolution,
I ended up in having pacman 3.5.0, but an old xz-utils, resulting in
some broken pacman depending on some shared library of a package that
hasn't been upgraded yet.

Is that intended? Unfortunately, I'm in a rush and I don't have any time
to analyze this in detail right now...
 
Old 03-18-2011, 11:10 AM
Xavier Chantry
 
Default SyncFirst and dependencies

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Lukas Fleischer
<archlinux@cryptocrack.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not really sure if this actually is a bug or intended behaviour but
> upgrading pacman man my freshly installed system with [testing] enabled
> just broke pacman:
>
> $ pacman
> pacman: error while loading shared libraries: liblzma.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
>
> After some investigation, I figured out that "liblzma.so" is part of
> xz-utils which was renamed to "xz" sometime ago. When doing the first
> full system upgrade, pacman asked me to upgrade itself, first. As
> "SyncFirst" packages seem to be pulled in without dependency resolution,
> I ended up in having pacman 3.5.0, but an old xz-utils, resulting in
> some broken pacman depending on some shared library of a package that
> hasn't been upgraded yet.
>
> Is that intended? Unfortunately, I'm in a rush and I don't have any time
> to analyze this in detail right now...
>
>

dep resolution is done, but if the deps are not precise enough, it
does not help.
Another example where sodeps could have been useful

As far as I can see, libarchive 2.8.4-2 got a versioned dep on xz >= 5
but pacman only depends on libarchive 2.8.0
 
Old 03-18-2011, 12:02 PM
Lukas Fleischer
 
Default SyncFirst and dependencies

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 01:10:01PM +0100, Xavier Chantry wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Lukas Fleischer
> <archlinux@cryptocrack.de> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm not really sure if this actually is a bug or intended behaviour but
> > upgrading pacman man my freshly installed system with [testing] enabled
> > just broke pacman:
> >
> > $ pacman
> > pacman: error while loading shared libraries: liblzma.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
> >
> > After some investigation, I figured out that "liblzma.so" is part of
> > xz-utils which was renamed to "xz" sometime ago. When doing the first
> > full system upgrade, pacman asked me to upgrade itself, first. As
> > "SyncFirst" packages seem to be pulled in without dependency resolution,
> > I ended up in having pacman 3.5.0, but an old xz-utils, resulting in
> > some broken pacman depending on some shared library of a package that
> > hasn't been upgraded yet.
> >
> > Is that intended? Unfortunately, I'm in a rush and I don't have any time
> > to analyze this in detail right now...
> >
> >
>
> dep resolution is done, but if the deps are not precise enough, it
> does not help.
> Another example where sodeps could have been useful
>
> As far as I can see, libarchive 2.8.4-2 got a versioned dep on xz >= 5
> but pacman only depends on libarchive 2.8.0

Right, ye. I literally only had 10 minutes to figure this out and made
wrong assumptions, thank your for clearifying. The pacman package in
[testing] should be fixed anyway - before moving it to [core].
Otherwise, all fresh installs will break on the first system upgrade.

Opened a Flyspray ticket [1].

[1] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/23325
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:57 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org