[SOLVED] changed to aurman instead of pacaur - packages not known...

newsboost · 2018-06-12 08:40:40

Dear all,

I began having problems with pacaur, but realized that it probably began to become deprecated. So I switched to using aurman... I have several problems, mainly in 2 categories, because I think I did "pacman -Suyy --force" in order to successfully install aurman:

1) Now python-pip doesn't work at all, please see:

# pip
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/bin/pip", line 11, in <module>
    load_entry_point('pip==10.0.1', 'console_scripts', 'pip')()
  File "/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 476, in load_entry_point
    return get_distribution(dist).load_entry_point(group, name)
  File "/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 2700, in load_entry_point
    return ep.load()
  File "/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 2318, in load
    return self.resolve()
  File "/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 2324, in resolve
    module = __import__(self.module_name, fromlist=['__name__'], level=0)
  File "/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/pip/_internal/__init__.py", line 42, in <module>
    from pip._internal import cmdoptions
  File "/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/pip/_internal/cmdoptions.py", line 16, in <module>
    from pip._internal.index import (
  File "/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/pip/_internal/index.py", line 20, in <module>
    from pip._vendor.requests.exceptions import SSLError
ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'pip._vendor.requests.exceptions'

I don't know what is the best way to solve this.

2) Problem two:

$ aurman -Suyy
[sudo] password for.......: 
:: Synchronizing package databases...
....
 multilib                 170.1 KiB  11.9M/s 00:00 [#####################] 100%
:: Starting full system upgrade...
 there is nothing to do

~~ initializing aurman...
~~ the following packages are neither in known repos nor in the aur
:: js38-38.8.0-5
:: js-24.2.0-4
:: smpeg2-1:2.0.0-2
:: dcadec-0.2.0-1
:: gegl02-0.2.0-8
:: vte-0.28.2-8
:: libtxc_dxtn-1.0.1-6
:: pycharm-community-2017.2.3-1
:: libcloudproviders-0.2.5+9+g93dc5ea-1
:: caja-gksu-1.20.0-1
:: libtracker-sparql-1.12.3-1
~~ calculating solutions...
:: nothing to do... everything is up to date

I'm not so happy about the "the following packages are neither in known repos nor in the aur" - how to avoid or clean up this list, in the most gentle way?

I hope you can give a few suggestions/ideas for one (or both) of these two problems, so I can "clean up my system", thanks!

Last edited by newsboost (2018-06-13 13:43:56)

V1del · 2018-06-12 08:55:51

Please post output in [ code ] tags.

The pip error is well known and comes from the fact that you likely updated pip manually without going via pacman, remove the entire pip folder and reinstall pip using pacman. Stop running pip as root, it breaks system packages. See https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/58849 as well.

The other output is normal and if you are used to pacaur that will have given you a similar list, you get this because none of these packages exist in the repos nor in the AUR, if you are asking the way you are asking, you are unlikely to need any of them, they are safe to remove.

Edit: Just to echo it again, though as of pacman 5.1 you are somewhat protected from this, do not ever force entire upgrades, if you suspect some actual fallout from this, look at the pacman.log and check the packages involved in that forceful update that they are in order. However simply from these outputs you've shared these have perfectly explainable causes.

Last edited by V1del (2018-06-12 09:01:18)

Xabre · 2018-06-12 08:56:02

Never ever, and possibly not even then, use --force to install packages.
Listed packages are indeed not available in repoes or in AUR, that is not an error. (it is quite possible they were unmaintained orphans in AUR and got deleted)
If you don't know the reason why they are installed, uninstalling them with pacman is a very sane thing to do.

eschwartz · 2018-06-12 11:18:12

Just off the top of my head, half that list of packages is for things which used to be in the official repos but no longer exist because they're useless.

js38 and js are old, legacy releases of Mozilla's js interpreter, but all current packages use js52 (except for js185 which is still needed by couchdb, see https://www.archlinux.org/todo/remove-j … the-repos/ for details).
vte is the old gtk2 version of vte, nothing needs this legacy software anymore since they use current versions of vte3.
libcloudproviders was added for gtk3 but is now no longer provided at all: https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/pack … 82dd3c7712
gksu is dead, anything that used it was deleted or rebuilt without it.
The latest version of gimp no longer needs gegl02, so it uses gegl at version 0.4.2

pycharm-community-edition is now in the official repos, IIRC it was renamed with the -edition when being moved from the AUR to the official repos.

...

tl;dr you should periodically clean up orphans: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pa … orphans.29

newsboost · 2018-06-12 16:40:37

V1del wrote:

Please post output in [ code ] tags.

Fixed, thanks, I forgot on this forum...

V1del wrote:

The pip error is well known and comes from the fact that you likely updated pip manually without going via pacman, remove the entire pip folder and reinstall pip using pacman. Stop running pip as root, it breaks system packages. See https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/58849 as well.
The other output is normal and if you are used to pacaur that will have given you a similar list, you get this because none of these packages exist in the repos nor in the AUR, if you are asking the way you are asking, you are unlikely to need any of them, they are safe to remove.
Edit: Just to echo it again, though as of pacman 5.1 you are somewhat protected from this, do not ever force entire upgrades, if you suspect some actual fallout from this, look at the pacman.log and check the packages involved in that forceful update that they are in order. However simply from these outputs you've shared these have perfectly explainable causes.

Thanks a lot, pip is now working again, I was just not sure if there were any negative side-effects of uninstalling and removing /usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/pip - but it works now, thanks a lot!

Next, I'm just used to running pip as root, because normally I use pip for installing/uninstalling something... But ok, thanks, I think I understand your advice, from a security view point.

About the unnecessary packages from aurman (yep, I'm more used to pacaur, but it didn't work anymore until just now, maybe because some packages upgraded, reboot or I don't know). You wrote "they are safe to remove", but these packages seems not recognized by neither pacman, nor aurman:

$ aurman -Ss gegl02
# pacman -Ss gegl02

(there's no output, so I imagine, neither package manager knows about these - so I'm a little unsure about how exactly to find which files/folders should be deleted - and is it okay with "sudo rm /usr/lib/python-.... " etc ?)

I have pacman 5.1 - I normally do not force upgrade, but now I was just annoyed and crossed my fingers... Thanks, I'll try to remember not to do that in the future. I'll try to look in pacman.log the next time and try to dig more into it, before trying the easy solution (force)... Thanks.

newsboost · 2018-06-12 16:41:44

Xabre wrote:

Never ever, and possibly not even then, use --force to install packages.
Listed packages are indeed not available in repoes or in AUR, that is not an error. (it is quite possible they were unmaintained orphans in AUR and got deleted)
If you don't know the reason why they are installed, uninstalling them with pacman is a very sane thing to do.

But at least some of them were/are not known by pacman, so there's where I become confused... I'll check again later tonight, am in a hurry now, thanks.

newsboost · 2018-06-12 16:44:04

Xabre wrote:

Never ever, and possibly not even then, use --force to install packages.
Listed packages are indeed not available in repoes or in AUR, that is not an error. (it is quite possible they were unmaintained orphans in AUR and got deleted)
If you don't know the reason why they are installed, uninstalling them with pacman is a very sane thing to do.

Thank you very much, I'll try it out and give feedback later - maybe tomorrow if I'm unlucky, thanks for telling about cleaning up orphans!

Trilby · 2018-06-12 16:44:20

newsboost wrote:

... but these packages seems not recognized by neither pacman, nor aurman

You are using the wrong flags. Those commands merely confirm that that package is not in the repos - you already knew this. But pacman still knows it's installed, use `pacman -Qs geg102` instead and you'll see it there. As for removing it, do not just `rm` files managed by pacman; remove unneeded packages with pacman `pacman -R geg102` or even better `pacman -Rsn geg102`.

eschwartz · 2018-06-12 16:50:47

newsboost wrote:

About the unnecessary packages from aurman (yep, I'm more used to pacaur, but it didn't work anymore until just now, maybe because some packages upgraded, reboot or I don't know). You wrote "they are safe to remove", but these packages seems not recognized by neither pacman, nor aurman:
$ aurman -Ss gegl02
# pacman -Ss gegl02
(there's no output, so I imagine, neither package manager knows about these - so I'm a little unsure about how exactly to find which files/folders should be deleted - and is it okay with "sudo rm /usr/lib/python-.... " etc ?)

Did you completely overlook my post?

Also as Trilby said, this command correctly told you the packages no longer exist in any repositories. I'm curious how you made the leap from there to "neither package manager knows about these", when your first post emphatically demonstrated that aurman did know about them, because it was trying to find remote versions of them.

newsboost · 2018-06-13 07:21:26

Trilby wrote:

newsboost wrote:
... but these packages seems not recognized by neither pacman, nor aurman
You are using the wrong flags. Those commands merely confirm that that package is not in the repos - you already knew this. But pacman still knows it's installed, use `pacman -Qs geg102` instead and you'll see it there. As for removing it, do not just `rm` files managed by pacman; remove unneeded packages with pacman `pacman -R geg102` or even better `pacman -Rsn geg102`.

Ok, thank you very much, highly appreciated. I can also tell you why I thought my flags would work:

# pacman -Ss python3 | grep -i "extra/python 3.6.5-3"
extra/python 3.6.5-3 [installed]

So using "-Ss"-flags it says "installed"... I'll try to remember "-Qs" in the future, thank you very much ("# pacman -Rns libtxc_dxtn" seems to work just fine, thanks!)...

newsboost · 2018-06-13 07:23:29

Eschwartz wrote:

newsboost wrote:
About the unnecessary packages from aurman (yep, I'm more used to pacaur, but it didn't work anymore until just now, maybe because some packages upgraded, reboot or I don't know). You wrote "they are safe to remove", but these packages seems not recognized by neither pacman, nor aurman:
$ aurman -Ss gegl02
# pacman -Ss gegl02
(there's no output, so I imagine, neither package manager knows about these - so I'm a little unsure about how exactly to find which files/folders should be deleted - and is it okay with "sudo rm /usr/lib/python-.... " etc ?)
Did you completely overlook my post?
Also as Trilby said, this command correctly told you the packages no longer exist in any repositories. I'm curious how you made the leap from there to "neither package manager knows about these", when your first post emphatically demonstrated that aurman did know about them, because it was trying to find remote versions of them.

I "made the lead" because sometimes using flags "-Ss" tells "installed" - I thought that would also happen here. For some reason (I don't know why), "-Ss" doesn't show installed here, but I can still remove with "-Rns". There you go, thanks for your help interest and support - highly appreciated, thanks (I would guess that if a package for some reason become orphaned it will not longer be "installed" with "-Ss" but luckily I've learned I can still uninstall with -Rns.... Thanks.

Last edited by newsboost (2018-06-13 07:24:33)

newsboost · 2018-06-13 07:50:24

Ok, I thought I understood everything - but have a last question, please see:

$ aurman -Suyy
:: Synchronizing package databases...
.....
~ initializing aurman...
~~ the following packages are neither in known repos nor in the aur
:: dcadec-0.2.0-1
~~ calculating solutions...
:: nothing to do... everything is up to date

So "dcadec" is the last orphaned package, which I'm trying to remove:

# pacman -Qs dcadec
local/dcadec 0.2.0-1
    DTS Coherent Acoustics decoder with support for HD extensions
[root@KalPC tmp]# pacman -Rns dcadec
checking dependencies...
error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies)
:: ffmpeg2.8: removing dcadec breaks dependency 'libdcadec.so=0-64'

Now, as I understand it, it says that ffmpeg2.8 needs the orphaned package ("removing dcadec breaks dependency 'libdcadec.so=0-64'") and therefore it cannot uninstall it - even though it is orphaned? That I find strange........ Very strange and not logically to me...

Mr.Elendig · 2018-06-13 08:04:27

pacman -Rsc ffmpeg2.8

It has been dropped from the repos

V1del · 2018-06-13 08:13:39

ffmpeg2.8 should be an orphaned package as well (but doesn't appear in aurmans output because there is still an AUR package for it). The error is logical in so far that pacman will not want to create unwanted side effects. As you are also unlikely to still have a need for ffmpeg2.8 you can remove that as well. If you pass all involved participants in a single transaction that dependency will be logically resolved, i.e. using

pacman -Rns dcadec ffmpeg2.8

should work. In generally you should look at your orphans periodically with pacman -Qtdq and remove them in case

Last edited by V1del (2018-06-13 10:49:38)

newsboost · 2018-06-13 10:09:24

@Mr.Elendig & @V1del: Thank you all, everything is now solved, I highly appreciate your time and help, thanks!

V1del · 2018-06-13 10:31:51

Glad to hear, please mark the thread as such by prepending [SOLVED] or similar to the title in your first post, adjust accordingly if you are hitting the character limit.

Trilby · 2018-06-13 10:49:03

V1del wrote:

In generally you should look at your orphans periodically with pacman -Qrdq

That should be `pacman -Qtdq`.

V1del · 2018-06-13 10:50:05

Whoops fatfingered the r as opposed to the t

eschwartz · 2018-06-13 11:04:37

newsboost wrote:

I "made the lead" because sometimes using flags "-Ss" tells "installed" - I thought that would also happen here. For some reason (I don't know why), "-Ss" doesn't show installed here, but I can still remove with "-Rns". There you go, thanks for your help interest and support - highly appreciated, thanks (I would guess that if a package for some reason become orphaned it will not longer be "installed" with "-Ss" but luckily I've learned I can still uninstall with -Rns.... Thanks.

That's entirely correct. The -Ss flags do a search of the sync repositories (which these packages are not in), and also tells you if a sync package is additionally installed.

It wouldn't need to list "[Installed]" if you were searching the list of installed packages, because it would be obvious they are installed...

newsboost · 2018-06-13 13:56:26

Trilby wrote:

V1del wrote:
In generally you should look at your orphans periodically with pacman -Qrdq
That should be `pacman -Qtdq`.

Great, thanks, I certainly learned a lesson or maybe two (or more) here. Topic is now marked solved.

@Eschwartz : Good, now I think it all makes sense, thanks :-)
Thanks all...

Last edited by newsboost (2018-06-13 13:57:20)

Arch Linux

#1 2018-06-12 08:40:40

[SOLVED] changed to aurman instead of pacaur - packages not known...

#2 2018-06-12 08:55:51

Re: [SOLVED] changed to aurman instead of pacaur - packages not known...

#3 2018-06-12 08:56:02

Re: [SOLVED] changed to aurman instead of pacaur - packages not known...

#4 2018-06-12 11:18:12

Re: [SOLVED] changed to aurman instead of pacaur - packages not known...

#5 2018-06-12 16:40:37

Re: [SOLVED] changed to aurman instead of pacaur - packages not known...

#6 2018-06-12 16:41:44

Re: [SOLVED] changed to aurman instead of pacaur - packages not known...

#7 2018-06-12 16:44:04

Re: [SOLVED] changed to aurman instead of pacaur - packages not known...

#8 2018-06-12 16:44:20

Re: [SOLVED] changed to aurman instead of pacaur - packages not known...

#9 2018-06-12 16:50:47

Re: [SOLVED] changed to aurman instead of pacaur - packages not known...

#10 2018-06-13 07:21:26

Re: [SOLVED] changed to aurman instead of pacaur - packages not known...

#11 2018-06-13 07:23:29

Re: [SOLVED] changed to aurman instead of pacaur - packages not known...

#12 2018-06-13 07:50:24

Re: [SOLVED] changed to aurman instead of pacaur - packages not known...

#13 2018-06-13 08:04:27

Re: [SOLVED] changed to aurman instead of pacaur - packages not known...

#14 2018-06-13 08:13:39

Re: [SOLVED] changed to aurman instead of pacaur - packages not known...

#15 2018-06-13 10:09:24

Re: [SOLVED] changed to aurman instead of pacaur - packages not known...

#16 2018-06-13 10:31:51

Re: [SOLVED] changed to aurman instead of pacaur - packages not known...

#17 2018-06-13 10:49:03

Re: [SOLVED] changed to aurman instead of pacaur - packages not known...

#18 2018-06-13 10:50:05

Re: [SOLVED] changed to aurman instead of pacaur - packages not known...

#19 2018-06-13 11:04:37

Re: [SOLVED] changed to aurman instead of pacaur - packages not known...

#20 2018-06-13 13:56:26

Re: [SOLVED] changed to aurman instead of pacaur - packages not known...

Board footer