Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Bug#994081: libdvd-pkg: 1.4.3-1-1 Upgrade Results in 'apt-get check' Failure
71 views
Skip to first unread message
Kurt Meyer
Sep 11, 2021, 5:30:03 AM9/11/21
to
Package: libdvd-pkg
Version: 1.4.3-1-1
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
* What led up to the situation?
I performed an upgrade (apt upgrade) with the following manually held back packages due to bug reports: libc6, libc6:i386, libc6-dev, libxml2, libxml2:i386, and lintian.
Following is a complete list of held back packages resulting from the manually held back packages:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following packages have been kept back:
cpp-9 gcc-11-base gcc-11-base:i386 gcc-9 gcc-9-base gcc-9-base:i386 libasan5
libasan6 libatomic1 libatomic1:i386 libc-bin libc-dev-bin libc6 libc6:i386
libc6-dev libcc1-0 libgcc-9-dev libgcc-s1 libgcc-s1:i386 libgfortran5 libgomp1
libgomp1:i386 libitm1 liblsan0 libquadmath0 libstdc++6 libstdc++6:i386 libtsan0
libubsan1 libuno-sal3 libxml2 libxml2:i386 lintian locales mpv vorbis-tools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or ineffective)?
n/a
* What was the outcome of this action?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
libdvd-pkg: Downloading orig source...
I: libdvdcss_1.4.3
/usr/bin/wget --tries=3 --timeout=40 --read-timeout=40 --continue -O libdvdcss_1.4.3.orig.tar.bz2 \
|| /usr/bin/uscan --noconf --verbose --rename --destdir=/usr/src/libdvd-pkg --check-dirname-level=0 --force-download --download-current-version /usr/share/libdvd-pkg/debian
--2021-09-11 02:13:51-- https://download.videolan.org/pub/libdvdcss/1.4.3/libdvdcss-1.4.3.tar.bz2
Resolving download.videolan.org (download.videolan.org)... 213.36.253.2, 2a01:e0d:1:3:58bf:fa02:c0de:5
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 388404 (379K) [application/octet-stream]
Saving to: ‘libdvdcss_1.4.3.orig.tar.bz2’
libdvdcss_1.4.3.orig 100%[======================>] 379.30K 1.35MB/s in 0.3s
2021-09-11 02:13:52 (1.35 MB/s) - ‘libdvdcss_1.4.3.orig.tar.bz2’ saved [388404/388404]
libdvd-pkg: Checking orig.tar integrity...
/usr/src/libdvd-pkg/libdvdcss_1.4.3.orig.tar.bz2: OK
libdvd-pkg: `apt-get check` failed, you may have broken packages. Aborting...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* What outcome did you expect instead?
A normal upgrade.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: bookworm/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 5.10.0-8-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU threads)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE, TAINT_FIRMWARE_WORKAROUND, TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled
Versions of packages libdvd-pkg depends on:
ii build-essential 12.9
ii debconf [debconf-2.0] 1.5.77
ii debhelper [debhelper-compat] 13.5.1
ii devscripts 2.21.4
ii wget 1.21-1+b1
Versions of packages libdvd-pkg recommends:
ii libcap2-bin 1:2.44-1
libdvd-pkg suggests no packages.
-- debconf information:
libdvd-pkg/post-invoke_hook-remove: false
* libdvd-pkg/build: true
* libdvd-pkg/post-invoke_hook-install: true
libdvd-pkg/title_b-i:
* libdvd-pkg/first-install:
libdvd-pkg/upgrade:
libdvd-pkg/title_u:
The Wanderer
Sep 12, 2021, 8:10:03 AM9/12/21
to
I have the same result, although in my case, the command I had run was
'apt-get dist-upgrade' and there were no packages kept back.
By "the same result", I mean that except for cosmetic things like the
timestamp, the reported download speed, and the width of the wget
download-progress bar, the output appears to be exactly identical.
Looking at the scripts involved, I don't see anything that looks
obviously different from what this seems to have been before; it's still
just invoking 'apt-get check', reacting to the exit status, and
returning success. That leads me to think that the difference must be
the result of a change in the behavior of 'apt-get check', which would
mean that the most likely cause is a change in apt itself.
Looking at the apt changelog (from the uploads to experimental over the
months of the release freeze), I see a few things which could maybe if
the circumstances are right be handwaved as being related; however, I
don't know the libdvd-pkg design well enough to be able to judge which
of them might actually be related, and I'm not currently inclined to
grab the apt source and start digging to see what 'apt-get check' is
actually doing now that might be different from the last time this was
known to be working.
I do want to note that after getting this error, I ran 'dpkg-reconfigure
libdvd-pkg' as suggested elsewhere, and saw it complete with no errors.
'apt-get dist-upgrade' and there were no packages kept back.
By "the same result", I mean that except for cosmetic things like the
timestamp, the reported download speed, and the width of the wget
download-progress bar, the output appears to be exactly identical.
Looking at the scripts involved, I don't see anything that looks
obviously different from what this seems to have been before; it's still
just invoking 'apt-get check', reacting to the exit status, and
returning success. That leads me to think that the difference must be
the result of a change in the behavior of 'apt-get check', which would
mean that the most likely cause is a change in apt itself.
Looking at the apt changelog (from the uploads to experimental over the
months of the release freeze), I see a few things which could maybe if
the circumstances are right be handwaved as being related; however, I
don't know the libdvd-pkg design well enough to be able to judge which
of them might actually be related, and I'm not currently inclined to
grab the apt source and start digging to see what 'apt-get check' is
actually doing now that might be different from the last time this was
known to be working.
I do want to note that after getting this error, I ran 'dpkg-reconfigure
libdvd-pkg' as suggested elsewhere, and saw it complete with no errors.
Dmitry Smirnov
Sep 14, 2021, 2:10:04 AM9/14/21
to
On Saturday, 11 September 2021 7:22:33 PM AEST Kurt Meyer wrote:
> libdvd-pkg: `apt-get check` failed, you may have broken packages.
> Aborting...
I understand that "apt check" should not fail on held packages so
> libdvd-pkg: `apt-get check` failed, you may have broken packages.
> Aborting...
I suspect there might be something wrong with the state of
package management on system. Could you try "apt install -f" please?
--
Cheers,
Dmitry Smirnov
GPG key : 4096R/52B6BBD953968D1B
---
If the truth offends, it's our job to offend.
-- Satoshi Kanazawa
---
Your Facebook friends are wrong about the lockdown. A non-hysterics's guide
to COVID-19 by Tom Woods.
-- https://wrongaboutlockdown.com/
Matthew Vernon
Feb 7, 2023, 4:20:04 AM2/7/23
to
severity 994081 important
quit
Hi,
After basically any apt upgrade, I get:
Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.36-8):
is stopping libdvd-pkg from proceeding, which seems like an important bug.
Regards,
Matthew
quit
Hi,
After basically any apt upgrade, I get:
Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.36-8):
libdvd-pkg: Checking orig.tar integrity...
/usr/src/libdvd-pkg/libdvdcss_1.4.3.orig.tar.bz2: OK
libdvd-pkg: `apt-get check` failed, you may have broken packages.
Aborting...
I can confirm that "apt-get check" returns 0. AFAICT this failing check
/usr/src/libdvd-pkg/libdvdcss_1.4.3.orig.tar.bz2: OK
libdvd-pkg: `apt-get check` failed, you may have broken packages.
Aborting...
is stopping libdvd-pkg from proceeding, which seems like an important bug.
Regards,
Matthew
Matthew Vernon
Feb 7, 2023, 4:30:04 AM2/7/23
to
Hi,
I went looking to try and see where the check was being carried out, and
it's in:
/usr/lib/libdvd-pkg/b-i_libdvdcss.sh
apt-get check >/dev/null 2>&1
if [ "$?" -ne 0 ]; then
echo "${PKGI}: \`apt-get check\` failed, you may have broken
packages. Aborting..."
exit 0
fi
Which is why there's no useful information in the error message. So I
edited that file on my system and ran apt autoremove so force a trigger
run, and that gets:
/usr/src/libdvd-pkg/libdvdcss_1.4.3.orig.tar.bz2: OK
E: Could not get lock /var/lib/dpkg/lock-frontend. It is held by process
29788 (apt)
N: Be aware that removing the lock file is not a solution and may break
your system.
E: Unable to acquire the dpkg frontend lock
(/var/lib/dpkg/lock-frontend), is another process using it?
evidently intended to be run) can never work, because apt-get check
tries to hold the dpkg lock, but it's help by apt.
So I think this is RC, do you agree?
Regards,
Matthew
I went looking to try and see where the check was being carried out, and
it's in:
/usr/lib/libdvd-pkg/b-i_libdvdcss.sh
apt-get check >/dev/null 2>&1
if [ "$?" -ne 0 ]; then
echo "${PKGI}: \`apt-get check\` failed, you may have broken
packages. Aborting..."
exit 0
fi
Which is why there's no useful information in the error message. So I
edited that file on my system and ran apt autoremove so force a trigger
run, and that gets:
/usr/src/libdvd-pkg/libdvdcss_1.4.3.orig.tar.bz2: OK
E: Could not get lock /var/lib/dpkg/lock-frontend. It is held by process
29788 (apt)
N: Be aware that removing the lock file is not a solution and may break
your system.
E: Unable to acquire the dpkg frontend lock
(/var/lib/dpkg/lock-frontend), is another process using it?
libdvd-pkg: `apt-get check` failed, you may have broken packages.
Aborting...
So I'm afraid the problem is that running this script from apt (as it is
Aborting...
evidently intended to be run) can never work, because apt-get check
tries to hold the dpkg lock, but it's help by apt.
So I think this is RC, do you agree?
Regards,
Matthew
Cecil Westerhof
Sep 3, 2023, 10:00:05 AM9/3/23
to
On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 00:11:16 +0200 Alban Browaeys <pra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Package: libdvd-pkg
> Version: 1.4.3-1-1
> Followup-For: Bug #994081
>
> Dear Maintainer,
> TL;DR: could apt-get be called with "--dry-run" a flag when we call its
> "check" command as to get libdvd-pkg triggers script to run?
> Package: libdvd-pkg
> Version: 1.4.3-1-1
> Followup-For: Bug #994081
>
> Dear Maintainer,
> TL;DR: could apt-get be called with "--dry-run" a flag when we call its
> "check" command as to get libdvd-pkg triggers script to run?
Why is nothing done with this? Even if it just would have been: this is no solution because --dry-run does not what needs to be done?
I just switched to Debian 12 from 11 and ran into this issue. And when I saw that the issue was about two years old I was flabbergasted: I am used to the high quality of Debian.
I made in /usr/lib/libdvd-pkg/b-i_libdvdcss.sh the following change:
# @@@@ added ry-run and /dev/null redirection removed
apt-get check --dry-run # >/dev/null 2>&1
# @@@@ added ry-run and /dev/null redirection removed
apt-get check --dry-run # >/dev/null 2>&1
I am now waiting until my system needs an upgrade to see the result from this change.
I will share it when I have it.
Geert Stappers
Sep 3, 2023, 3:10:04 PM9/3/23
to
From: Geert Stappers <stap...@debian.org>
Fixes https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994081
"Upgrade Results in 'apt-get check' Failure"
It is fairly nasty bug. Nasty because it hides well.
Thing is that the `apt check` is during development never called
as a child proces of `apt`. It reveals it self only during
an upgrade by `apt` or `apt-get`, not during a `dpkg --install`.
Adding '--dry-run' is to prevent bail out on
Locking will be disabled (Debug::NoLocking) so the system
state could change while apt-get is running.
The removal of 'exit 0' makes it possible that the (build) script
continues. Frankly, I think the whole `apt check` part should
be removed. It is not up to /usr/lib/libdvd-pkg/b-i_libdvdcss.sh
to judge the sanity of the build system.
--dry-run suggested by Alban Browaeys in Message #37
'What does the apt check?' by The Wanderer in Message #10
---
debian/b-i_libdvdcss.sh | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/debian/b-i_libdvdcss.sh b/debian/b-i_libdvdcss.sh
index 536614c..6d77a50 100755
--- a/debian/b-i_libdvdcss.sh
+++ b/debian/b-i_libdvdcss.sh
@@ -43,10 +43,9 @@ if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then
exit 1
fi
-apt-get check >/dev/null 2>&1
+apt-get --dry-run check >/dev/null 2>&1
- exit 0
+ echo "${PKGI}: \`apt-get --dry-run check\` failed, you may have broken packages."
fi
set -e
--
2.40.1
Fixes https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994081
"Upgrade Results in 'apt-get check' Failure"
It is fairly nasty bug. Nasty because it hides well.
Thing is that the `apt check` is during development never called
as a child proces of `apt`. It reveals it self only during
an upgrade by `apt` or `apt-get`, not during a `dpkg --install`.
Adding '--dry-run' is to prevent bail out on
E: Could not get lock /var/lib/dpkg/lock-frontend.
It is held by process PID (apt)
E: Unable to acquire the dpkg frontend lock
Manual page of `apt-get` says about `--dry-run`
Locking will be disabled (Debug::NoLocking) so the system
state could change while apt-get is running.
The removal of 'exit 0' makes it possible that the (build) script
continues. Frankly, I think the whole `apt check` part should
be removed. It is not up to /usr/lib/libdvd-pkg/b-i_libdvdcss.sh
to judge the sanity of the build system.
--dry-run suggested by Alban Browaeys in Message #37
'What does the apt check?' by The Wanderer in Message #10
---
debian/b-i_libdvdcss.sh | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/debian/b-i_libdvdcss.sh b/debian/b-i_libdvdcss.sh
index 536614c..6d77a50 100755
--- a/debian/b-i_libdvdcss.sh
+++ b/debian/b-i_libdvdcss.sh
@@ -43,10 +43,9 @@ if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then
exit 1
fi
-apt-get check >/dev/null 2>&1
+apt-get --dry-run check >/dev/null 2>&1
if [ "$?" -ne 0 ]; then
- echo "${PKGI}: \`apt-get check\` failed, you may have broken packages. Aborting..."
- exit 0
+ echo "${PKGI}: \`apt-get --dry-run check\` failed, you may have broken packages."
fi
set -e
--
2.40.1
Cecil Westerhof
Sep 3, 2023, 3:30:04 PM9/3/23
to
On Sun, 3 Sep 2023 20:48:31 +0200 Geert Stappers <stap...@stappers.nl> wrote:
> From: Geert Stappers <stap...@debian.org>
>
> Fixes https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994081
> "Upgrade Results in 'apt-get check' Failure"
>
> It is fairly nasty bug. Nasty because it hides well.
> Thing is that the `apt check` is during development never called
> as a child proces of `apt`. It reveals it self only during
> an upgrade by `apt` or `apt-get`, not during a `dpkg --install`.
>
> Adding '--dry-run' is to prevent bail out on
> E: Could not get lock /var/lib/dpkg/lock-frontend.
> It is held by process PID (apt)
> E: Unable to acquire the dpkg frontend lock
>
> Manual page of `apt-get` says about `--dry-run`
> Locking will be disabled (Debug::NoLocking) so the system
> From: Geert Stappers <stap...@debian.org>
>
> Fixes https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994081
> "Upgrade Results in 'apt-get check' Failure"
>
> It is fairly nasty bug. Nasty because it hides well.
> Thing is that the `apt check` is during development never called
> as a child proces of `apt`. It reveals it self only during
> an upgrade by `apt` or `apt-get`, not during a `dpkg --install`.
>
> Adding '--dry-run' is to prevent bail out on
> E: Could not get lock /var/lib/dpkg/lock-frontend.
> It is held by process PID (apt)
> E: Unable to acquire the dpkg frontend lock
>
> Manual page of `apt-get` says about `--dry-run`
> Locking will be disabled (Debug::NoLocking) so the system
> state could change while apt-get is running.
No it could not.
The problem is that 'apt-get check' wants to get the lock that already is taken by 'apt upgrade'. So when the lock is not taken by using --dry-run we do not have the problem that a lock is requested that already is taken. And because the lock is already taken by 'apt upgrade' it should not be possible that the system state changes.
Geert Stappers
Sep 3, 2023, 3:40:04 PM9/3/23
to
Control: tags 994081 +patch
The patch is in Message #47
( https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994081#47 )
And attached to this email.
Groeten
Geert Stappers
DD
--
Silence is hard to parse
The patch is in Message #47
( https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=994081#47 )
And attached to this email.
Groeten
Geert Stappers
DD
--
Silence is hard to parse
Cecil Westerhof
Sep 6, 2023, 8:10:05 AM9/6/23
to
In my /usr/lib/libdvd-pkg/b-i_libdvdcss.sh at line 46, I changed:
apt-get check >/dev/null 2>&1
apt-get check >/dev/null 2>&1
if [ "$?" -ne 0 ]; then
echo "${PKGI}: \`apt-get check\` failed, you may have broken packages. Aborting..."
exit 0
fi
into:
# @@@@ dry-run toegevoegd en /dev/null redirection verwijderd
echo "BEFORE 'apt-get check' problem"
apt-get check --dry-run # >/dev/null 2>&1
exit 0
fi
into:
# @@@@ dry-run toegevoegd en /dev/null redirection verwijderd
echo "BEFORE 'apt-get check' problem"
apt-get check --dry-run # >/dev/null 2>&1
if [ "$?" -ne 0 ]; then
echo "${PKGI}: \`apt-get check\` failed, you may have broken packages. Aborting..."
exit 0
fi
echo "AFTER 'apt-get check' problem"
I had an upgrade that could be done and this resulted in:
BEFORE 'apt-get check' problem
Reading package lists...
Building dependency tree...
Reading state information...
AFTER 'apt-get check' problem
So by adding --dry-run we do not get the error anymore.
So if there is no reason that --dry-run would be wrong, I think it is a good idea to add it: then this two year old problem would finally be solved.
exit 0
fi
echo "AFTER 'apt-get check' problem"
I had an upgrade that could be done and this resulted in:
BEFORE 'apt-get check' problem
Reading package lists...
Building dependency tree...
Reading state information...
AFTER 'apt-get check' problem
So by adding --dry-run we do not get the error anymore.
So if there is no reason that --dry-run would be wrong, I think it is a good idea to add it: then this two year old problem would finally be solved.
0 new messages