pacman errors

aRcHaTe · 2007-04-05 16:02:46

the last update of pacman3 spits an error that could not download local files of a local repo...

[sickhate@aRcHaTe ~]$ sudo pacman -S filezilla
resolving dependencies... done.
looking for inter-conflicts... done.

Targets: filezilla-3.0.0beta7-1

Total Package Size: 1,57 MB

Proceed with installation? [Y/n] y
:: Retrieving packages from archlives...
error: failed retrieving file 'filezilla-3.0.0beta7-1.pkg.tar.gz' from : No such file or directory
warning: failed to retrieve some files from archlives
error: failed to commit transaction (unexpected error)

phrakture · 2007-04-05 19:40:58

What is the path to your local repo? The pkg files need to be right next to the db file in the FS.

aRcHaTe · 2007-04-05 21:52:17

the path is right..pacman -Sy gets it right...but when i try to install something it fails to retrive the file

bones · 2007-04-05 22:22:18

I had the same error the other day when I tried to install a file. I tried it the next day and all was well. Could it be the mirror you use not fully synced at the time? I have no idea what could cause the problem. Try later it might work like it did for me.

aRcHaTe · 2007-04-05 22:37:19

:: Retrieving packages from archlives...
error: failed retrieving file 'asmon-0.65-1.pkg.tar.gz' from : No such file or directory
warning: failed to retrieve some files from archlives
error: failed to commit transaction (unexpected error)

strange the file is named asmon-0.65-1-i686.pkg.tar.gz and it searches for asmon-0.65-1.pkg.tar.gz??? i syncded the rep again and still the same..if i install with pacman -A all goes fine...can some one tell me whats wrong???

Snowman · 2007-04-06 01:35:32

Rename the packages without the '-i686' and rebuild the db. The pacman tools are not yet compatible with the new pacman3 package naming scheme.

phrakture · 2007-04-06 06:40:27

Ah, right, didn't notice. If you use "repo-add" to build your repo, all should be right.

aRcHaTe · 2007-04-06 07:28:10

awsome..thanks for the help...repo-add did the trick

i was using the pyton script to creat the repo....like snowman said pacman tools are not ready, but does repo add does create the db.tar.gz for it self??? it would be awsome

Last edited by sickhate (2007-04-06 07:37:58)

phrakture · 2007-04-06 16:18:01

sickhate wrote:

awsome..thanks for the help...repo-add did the trick
i was using the pyton script to creat the repo....like snowman said pacman tools are not ready, but does repo add does create the db.tar.gz for it self??? it would be awsome

Yes, repo-add and repo-remove can be used to fully maintain a repo.

toofishes · 2007-04-06 16:58:08

Is this the python script in the wiki? If it doesn't work, please edit the page so other people know the same. Heck, you can even delete it since wiki keeps fully history around. repo-add and repo-remove are really the only tools you should need.

aRcHaTe · 2007-04-06 20:23:17

errr....weel have tested repo-add...it seemed all was correct...but am having the same erroron a retrive of a package ...please some help here ?

cromo · 2007-04-07 12:13:04

Pacman 3.0.1:
warning: nas: local (1.8-2) is newer than community (1.8b-1)

Nas 1.8b is obviously newer. Moreover, the package was updated for security reasons but pacman will not install it at all.
This is another example of a version comparison mess. It needs to be clarified for the package contributors how pacman handles this. Maybe we should have a look at what competition does (e.g. debian's dpkg).

I found three different solutions for that problem (when the upstream version 1.8b is newer 1.8)

1) The contributor is not supposed change the upstream pkgver and just bump up the pkgrel number

2) The pkgver would be b1.8. It could also be that b1.8 means beta and a1.8 means alfa, and 1.8b is a normal upstream pkgver, newer than 1.8. This solution may be a bit awkward and confusing I guess.

3) My favourite KISS compilant: if the package is alpha/beta it needs to be explicitly stated in a package name, i.e. wine 0.9.27beta or wine 0.9.27alpha. Eny other letter sequence after the numbers would be treated as a part of the version number, i.e. 1.8b is newer than 1.8.

All of these need some changes for contributors guidelines though.

Last edited by cromo (2007-04-07 12:30:02)

toofishes · 2007-04-07 17:29:04

cromo wrote:

Pacman 3.0.1:
warning: nas: local (1.8-2) is newer than community (1.8b-1)
Nas 1.8b is obviously newer. Moreover, the package was updated for security reasons but pacman will not install it at all.

No, it isn't OBVIOUSLY newer. When presented with 1.8 and 1.8b, I could tell you nothing conclusive.

This is what the force option in the PKGBUILD is for. It will force an upgrade to a package when necessary because version number comparing would be inconclusive.

I'm not trying to stir up anything here, but this issue has come up countless times on the ML and Flyspray, and unless you want to show the code to "fix" it, it isn't a top priority.

cromo · 2007-04-07 23:09:51

No, it isn't OBVIOUSLY newer. When presented with 1.8 and 1.8b, I could tell you nothing conclusive.

I meant it's obvious for the package maintainer. Though it was not very fortunate statement indeed.

This is what the force option in the PKGBUILD is for. It will force an upgrade to a package when necessary because version number comparing would be inconclusive.

Still, there's a problem about the confusion it brings to the users. They should be aware of a beta alpha/version and a normal "b" subversion of a package.

and unless you want to show the code to "fix" it, it isn't a top priority.

What does the ready code change? The ideas are here, I see no point to code all of them before the decision about eventual support of one of these (if any) is made?

Last edited by cromo (2007-04-07 23:10:47)

aRcHaTe · 2007-04-08 10:59:24

so...resuming...until the nas update...there is nothing to do...unless renaming all the packages....jeeeeezeeesssssss

aRcHaTe · 2007-04-15 21:13:07

well it seems that all the packages that are produced qith repo-add are added the field i686..even if they dont have it...can any developer help me here?

the perl script resoled it all....can the developer of repo-add see why? maybe it will be usefull

Last edited by sickhate (2007-04-15 21:26:42)

aRcHaTe · 2007-04-16 02:27:03

perlscript resolveds half of the problm....dont ignore me...wiki doesnt help mutch...

toofishes · 2007-04-16 03:32:31

sickhate, you aren't describing this problem very well. What do you mean by "packages produced with repo-add"? repo-add doesn't make packages, makepkg does. repo-add makes repository DBs.

I don't know what "the perl script" is either.

aRcHaTe · 2007-04-16 13:08:39

well like i sayd before ive tryed repo-add to update my DB but for some packages i get this error

Targets: filezilla-3.0.0beta7-1

Total Package Size: 1,57 MB

Proceed with installation? [Y/n] y
:: Retrieving packages from archlives...
error: failed retrieving file 'filezilla-3.0.0beta7-1.pkg.tar.gz' from : No such file or directory
warning: failed to retrieve some files from archlives
error: failed to commit transaction (unexpected error)

BUT the package is there but with the field i686 added...so if i do a pacman -A package it installs perfectly....what i want to say is that repo-add is not doing the update of DB correctly...some packages arent with the arch field added..and some do....can it be fix?

aRcHaTe · 2007-04-16 14:21:21

Targets: ymessenger-1.0.6.1-2

Total Package Size: 0,69 MB

Proceed with installation? [Y/n] y
:: Retrieving packages from archlives...
error: failed retrieving file 'ymessenger-1.0.6.1-2.pkg.tar.gz' from : No such file or directory
warning: failed to retrieve some files from archlives
error: failed to commit transaction (unexpected error)

it searches for the ymessenger-1.0.6.1-2.pkg.tar.gz but that package doesnt exist...it doenst seem to add the i686 archfiled.....the package is called ymessenger-1.0.6.1-2-i686.pkg.tar.gz ------------> i dont believe that anyone have noticed this...repo-add is a great tool...but it lacks this...please update i really need it

ps: not all of the packages have the arch field added...like those that a retrive from arch repos....

Last edited by sickhate (2007-04-16 14:26:25)

phrakture · 2007-04-16 15:14:10

The -i686 addition is specific to pacman3. If you're doing this download with pacman2 it will not work. You need to rename the packages before building your repo, and remove the -i686 addition, or else always use pacman 3.

aRcHaTe · 2007-04-16 15:43:45

im using pacman3....allways...and i created the repo with pacman3

[sickhate@aRcHaTe ~]$ sudo pacman -Q pacman
pacman 3.0.1-1
[sickhate@aRcHaTe ~]$

the packages that it doesnt extract are the ones that i created fro aur...the makepkg asks to add the arch field...so it apears on the name of the package...

Last edited by sickhate (2007-04-16 15:46:05)

aRcHaTe · 2007-04-16 17:21:35

Problem solved...what ive done is delete the data base and created an new one..all is ok now....now aurbuild is pissing me off....

Arch Linux

#1 2007-04-05 16:02:46

pacman errors

#2 2007-04-05 19:40:58

Re: pacman errors

#3 2007-04-05 21:52:17

Re: pacman errors

#4 2007-04-05 22:22:18

Re: pacman errors

#5 2007-04-05 22:37:19

Re: pacman errors

#6 2007-04-06 01:35:32

Re: pacman errors

#7 2007-04-06 06:40:27

Re: pacman errors

#8 2007-04-06 07:28:10

Re: pacman errors

#9 2007-04-06 16:18:01

Re: pacman errors

#10 2007-04-06 16:58:08

Re: pacman errors

#11 2007-04-06 20:23:17

Re: pacman errors

#12 2007-04-07 12:13:04

Re: pacman errors

#13 2007-04-07 17:29:04

Re: pacman errors

#14 2007-04-07 23:09:51

Re: pacman errors

#15 2007-04-08 10:59:24

Re: pacman errors

#16 2007-04-15 21:13:07

Re: pacman errors

#17 2007-04-16 02:27:03

Re: pacman errors

#18 2007-04-16 03:32:31

Re: pacman errors

#19 2007-04-16 13:08:39

Re: pacman errors

#20 2007-04-16 14:21:21

Re: pacman errors

#21 2007-04-16 15:14:10

Re: pacman errors

#22 2007-04-16 15:43:45

Re: pacman errors

#23 2007-04-16 17:21:35

Re: pacman errors

Board footer