You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#1 2023-01-16 11:03:14
- schard
- Member
- From: Hannover
- Registered: 2016-05-06
- Posts: 1,726
- Website
[WORKED AROUND] pacman: invalid or corrupted package - but which?
I just stumbled over this while updating a machine:
0 ✓ 180 ~ $ LANG=C pacman -Syu --noc
:: Synchronizing package databases...
core is up to date
extra is up to date
community is up to date
homeinfo is up to date
:: Starting full system upgrade...
resolving dependencies...
looking for conflicting packages...
Package (70) Old Version New Version Net Change
homeinfo/application-html 3.35.0-1 3.38.0-1 0.00 MiB
core/audit 3.0.8-1 3.0.9-1 -0.01 MiB
core/ca-certificates-mozilla 3.86-1 3.87-1 0.00 MiB
extra/chromium 108.0.5359.124-1 109.0.5414.74-1 15.73 MiB
core/curl 7.87.0-1 7.87.0-3 0.00 MiB
community/cython 0.29.32-2 0.29.33-1 0.00 MiB
extra/default-cursors 1-1 2-1 0.00 MiB
core/device-mapper 2.03.17-1 2.03.18-1 0.00 MiB
community/duktape 2.7.0-4 2.7.0-5 0.02 MiB
extra/ethtool 1:6.0-1 1:6.1-1 0.03 MiB
core/file 5.43-1 5.44-1 0.28 MiB
community/fwupd 1.8.8-1 1.8.9-1 0.04 MiB
extra/gdk-pixbuf2 2.42.10-1 2.42.10-2 0.00 MiB
extra/geoip-database 20221118-1 20221227-1 0.00 MiB
extra/gnu-netcat 0.7.1-8 0.7.1-9 0.00 MiB
extra/gtk-update-icon-cache 1:4.8.2-1 1:4.8.3-3 0.00 MiB
extra/gtk3 1:3.24.35-2 1:3.24.36-1 0.06 MiB
community/hidapi 0.12.0-1 0.13.1-1 0.01 MiB
core/hwdata 0.365-1 0.366-1 0.03 MiB
community/hwinfo 22.1-1 22.2-1 0.00 MiB
core/iana-etc 20221107-1 20221215-1 0.01 MiB
extra/imlib2 1.10.0-1 1.10.0-2 0.00 MiB
extra/lcms2 2.14-1 2.14-2 0.00 MiB
extra/libheif 1.14.0-1 1.14.2-1 0.01 MiB
core/libksba 1.6.2-1 1.6.3-1 0.00 MiB
community/libmfx 22.4.4-1 22.6.4-1 0.00 MiB
extra/libmm-glib 1.20.2-1 1.20.4-1 0.00 MiB
extra/libmodplug 0.8.9.0-3 0.8.9.0-5 0.00 MiB
extra/libomxil-bellagio 0.9.3-3 0.9.3-4 0.00 MiB
core/libpcap 1.10.1-2 1.10.3-1 0.02 MiB
extra/libproxy 0.4.18-1 0.4.18-2 0.00 MiB
core/libpsl 0.21.1-3 0.21.2-1 0.00 MiB
extra/libsndfile 1.1.0-3 1.2.0-1 0.02 MiB
extra/libtiff 4.4.0-4 4.5.0-1 3.37 MiB
extra/libva 2.16.0-1 2.17.0-1 0.00 MiB
extra/libwebp 1.2.4-1 1.3.0-2 0.01 MiB
extra/libx11 1.8.3-3 1.8.3-5 0.00 MiB
extra/libxkbcommon 1.4.1-2 1.5.0-1 0.00 MiB
core/linux-lts 5.15.84-1 5.15.88-1 0.05 MiB
extra/lua 5.4.4-2 5.4.4-3 0.00 MiB
core/man-db 2.11.1-1 2.11.2-1 0.01 MiB
core/man-pages 6.01-1 6.02-1 0.00 MiB
extra/mesa 22.3.1-1 22.3.3-1 0.00 MiB
core/mpfr 4.1.1.p1-1 4.2.0-1 0.03 MiB
extra/mpg123 1.31.1-1 1.15 MiB
core/ncurses 6.3-3 6.4-1 0.06 MiB
extra/nftables 1:1.0.5-1 1:1.0.6-1 0.03 MiB
core/nss 3.86-1 3.87-1 0.00 MiB
extra/openjpeg2 2.5.0-1 2.5.0-2 0.03 MiB
community/pacman-contrib 1.8.0-1 1.8.2-1 0.00 MiB
community/pcsclite 1.9.9-2 0.28 MiB
extra/perl-encode-locale 1.05-9 1.05-10 0.00 MiB
extra/perl-html-tagset 3.20-12 3.20-13 0.00 MiB
extra/perl-http-date 6.05-5 6.05-6 0.00 MiB
extra/perl-http-negotiate 6.01-10 6.01-11 0.00 MiB
extra/perl-lwp-mediatypes 6.04-2 6.04-3 0.00 MiB
extra/perl-www-robotrules 6.02-10 6.02-11 0.00 MiB
core/python 3.10.8-3 3.10.9-1 0.02 MiB
community/python-pydantic 1.10.2-1 1.10.4-1 0.02 MiB
extra/python-trove-classifiers 2022.12.1-1 2023.1.12-1 0.00 MiB
extra/rav1e 0.6.1-1 0.6.3-1 0.03 MiB
community/scrot 1.7-1 1.8-1 0.00 MiB
extra/sdl2 2.26.1-1 2.26.2-1 0.00 MiB
core/shadow 4.12.3-2 4.13-1 0.13 MiB
core/sqlite 3.40.0-2 3.40.1-1 0.01 MiB
community/tigervnc 1.12.0-3 1.12.90-1 -0.21 MiB
extra/vim 9.0.1046-1 9.0.1182-1 0.03 MiB
extra/vim-runtime 9.0.1046-1 9.0.1182-1 0.06 MiB
core/wpa_supplicant 2:2.10-7 2:2.10-8 0.25 MiB
core/xz 5.4.0-1 5.4.1-1 0.07 MiB
Total Installed Size: 863.09 MiB
Net Upgrade Size: 21.69 MiB
:: Proceed with installation? [Y/n]
:: Retrieving packages...
(70/70) checking keys in keyring [########################################################################################] 100%
(70/70) checking package integrity [########################################################################################] 100%
error: failed to commit transaction (invalid or corrupted package)
Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded.
1 ✗ 180 ~ $ What baffles me is, that pacman does not tell me which package is faulty.
Neither does it offer me to delete the faulty package.
What's going on here?
PS: Same thing after a mirror change.
Last edited by schard (2023-01-16 20:26:53)
Offline
#2 2023-01-16 12:35:22
- d.ALT
- Member
- Registered: 2019-05-10
- Posts: 648
Re: [WORKED AROUND] pacman: invalid or corrupted package - but which?
0 ✓ 180 ~ $ LANG=C pacman -Syu --noc
--noc ??
<49,17,III,I> Fama di loro il mondo esser non lassa;
<50,17,III,I> misericordia e giustizia li sdegna:
<51,17,III,I> non ragioniam di lor, ma guarda e passa.
Offline
#3 2023-01-16 14:01:44
- seth
- Member
- Registered: 2012-09-03
- Posts: 38,585
Re: [WORKED AROUND] pacman: invalid or corrupted package - but which?
--noc[onfirm], bad bad schard. Bad schard!
homeinfo repo?
Is the output format new and standard (i need to update…), some config feature or do you process the output otherwise?
type pacmanOffline
#4 2023-01-16 14:50:58
- d.ALT
- Member
- Registered: 2019-05-10
- Posts: 648
Re: [WORKED AROUND] pacman: invalid or corrupted package - but which?
--noc[onfirm], bad bad schard. Bad schard!
@schard: we both now owe (a lot of) beers to seth !!!!!!!!!! 
<49,17,III,I> Fama di loro il mondo esser non lassa;
<50,17,III,I> misericordia e giustizia li sdegna:
<51,17,III,I> non ragioniam di lor, ma guarda e passa.
Offline
#5 2023-01-16 20:23:24
- schard
- Member
- From: Hannover
- Registered: 2016-05-06
- Posts: 1,726
- Website
Re: [WORKED AROUND] pacman: invalid or corrupted package - but which?
--noc is okay here, since I rolled the very same set of updates on some reference systems before. All have the same patch level, so there's no problem with that.
The issue also remained with our repo temporarily disabled. I removed the contents to /var/cache/pacman/pkg altogether, since pacman refused to tell me what package was the culprit.
After that, the upgrade went fine. But I had to waste a lot of time and some traffic to re-download all those packages.
And, no. pacman is not aliased or shadowed otherwise.
Last edited by schard (2023-01-16 20:25:20)
Offline
#6 2023-01-16 20:27:04
- Head_on_a_Stick
- Member
- From: London
- Registered: 2014-02-20
- Posts: 6,990
- Website
Re: [WORKED AROUND] pacman: invalid or corrupted package - but which?
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Pacman … )%22_error
No need to nuke the entire cache
Offline
#7 2023-01-16 20:30:23
- schard
- Member
- From: Hannover
- Registered: 2016-05-06
- Posts: 1,726
- Website
Re: [WORKED AROUND] pacman: invalid or corrupted package - but which?
Good tip. Thanks.
I am not using a custom XferCommand, though.
But next time I'll only delete the *.part files first and try with that.
Offline
#8 2023-01-16 20:51:02
- seth
- Member
- Registered: 2012-09-03
- Posts: 38,585
Re: [WORKED AROUND] pacman: invalid or corrupted package - but which?
Also try w/o VerbosePkgLists and …
Neither does it offer me to delete the faulty package.
… --noconfirm
And since this is probably copypasted from a terminal and not a log (prompt…), which TE do you use?
(And is it urxvt?)
Offline
#9 2023-01-16 23:02:25
- schard
- Member
- From: Hannover
- Registered: 2016-05-06
- Posts: 1,726
- Website
Re: [WORKED AROUND] pacman: invalid or corrupted package - but which?
1) The output from above is using VerbosePkgLists. Misread the "without" part. Sorry.
2) --noconfirm would only auto-confirm the package deletion if corrupt packages would be listed, like here: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 1#p2077791
3) TE is gnome-terminal. I ran several other updates in the very same window and bash session on other systems without any issues.
Last edited by schard (2023-01-16 23:03:29)
Offline
#10 2023-01-16 23:19:23
- seth
- Member
- Registered: 2012-09-03
- Posts: 38,585
Re: [WORKED AROUND] pacman: invalid or corrupted package - but which?
2) --noconfirm should only auto-confirm the package deletion if corrupt packages would be listed
ftfy
We don't know what caused the corrupt packages nor whether some silent warning was auto-confirmed.
Though wiping the cache to get a working update does indeed not suggest that they've been auto-removed, it could, in theory, still have been a coincidence unless you also checked the cache completeness.
(update, broken package, removed, fail. update, broken package, removed, fail. update, broken package, removed, fail. wipe cache. update, no broken package, success.)
It's not very likely, but nor is the perceived behavior common.
Offline
#11 2023-01-16 23:41:24
- schard
- Member
- From: Hannover
- Registered: 2016-05-06
- Posts: 1,726
- Website
Re: [WORKED AROUND] pacman: invalid or corrupted package - but which?
Indeed. If the problem surfaces again, I will come back here and report.
Until then, thanks for your help. :-)
Offline