Pacman download corrupt extension(Solved)

lilsirecho · 2010-03-13 21:45:25

Download of libpng for x86_64 produces a download with the extension .pkg.tar.xz...instead of .pkg.tar.gz.

Whazzup?

EDIT: Same for avahi, smbclient and fluidsynth.

Last edited by lilsirecho (2010-03-14 02:45:25)

Runiq · 2010-03-13 21:47:31

Packages are gradually switching from gzip to lzma2 compression.

lilsirecho · 2010-03-13 22:25:40

How are users to intermix the two compressions in a single array of packages?

I get corrupt file errors when attempting to load and install packages with both gz and xz compressions from the same pacman source in x86_64 system.

This makes pacman useless rather than a front-runner!

Attempting to install an xz file falls on its face...................as expected!

What now?

Snowman · 2010-03-13 22:43:50

post the command line and error message

Allan · 2010-03-13 22:44:40

lilsirecho wrote:

Attempting to install an xz file falls on its face...................as expected!

Really... because it works for everybody else over the past month.

Please post some error output.

lilsirecho · 2010-03-13 23:30:31

Allan:
The error occurs when I attempt to install from local cachedir in a live usb boot of ctk.

The packages to be installed via pacman are in an array of 30 packages most of which are tar gz. Those which are xz cause the error...corrupt file cannot install. Further, the packages cannot be deleted because they aren't pacman compatible.

The packages are installed in a raid array and are used to allow short access time for large packages, saving the download time needed in normal installs via pacman.

The Live USB probably does not have the upgrade mechanism necessary to permit the use of "mixed" formats in packages.

Therefore, what is to be done to the system to make the "mixed" package format exist in harmony?

I do not jhave a way to display the errors that occur because the system fails to allow copying same. It suffices to say that the file is considered corrupt for those files having xz extensions and only those files.

Some mechanism is obviously needed within arch to permit the co-existence of both formats.

What is the necessary system change allowing the pkgs to coexist?

Was there or is there a warning about this in the arch news?

Whazzup?

Last edited by lilsirecho (2010-03-13 23:31:30)

Pierre · 2010-03-13 23:50:27

Seriously, that doesn't make much sense to me. Please try to describe your problem more specific. Which version of pacman are you using? Did you run "pacman -Syu" regularly? In fact pacman does support packages in different compression formats for a long time. And even if your system wasn't updated for some time a system update should fix it.

lilsirecho · 2010-03-14 00:15:05

PierreL:

The problem is not what you suggest. I have dutifully performed upgrades almost every day. Some of them take half the day to perform since I have a backup HDD which needs the same upgrade. The size of recent upgrades has made the system unuseable for most of the day waiting for the upgrades to finish.

That being said, I have a system that is up to date. This does not say that I know what each and every package downloaded and installed does for the system. Some things cause repercussions.

In this case, the repercussions are in an arch-related Live USB boot system wherein I use a cachedir of pacman packages which can be installed via pacman -U into the live system. This live system is not subject to archlinux upgrades which permit the use of pacman .gz and pacman .xz packages.

Therefore when utilizing xz packages in the cachedir, pacman -U cannot install xz extension packages (nor can it delete them since it cannot handle a "corrupt" package).

What has happened is the archlinux admins have decided to utilize the xz format and have provided for it . in a normal sense for usual download and installs.

It seems that cachedir packages installed via pacman -U do not fit the "normal" install mode. Therefore, the corrupt package result.

The cachedir I utilize saves time and is a raid cache which installs rapidly. It has 16 gb of storage available.

Whazzup? I need to know how to provide for a compatible pacman -U install of both gz and xz packages in a live usb archlinux based OS.

Certainly the pacman -U cammand is not dead yet. But it isn't compatible with the xz format.

I have used my raid cache for two years or more and now its defunct.

Allan:

Is xz format useable with a cache array utilizing pacman -U to install cached packages? If it is, what change is necessary to permit the install of xz "corrupt" packages.

Pierre · 2010-03-14 00:24:51

Sorry, but if you are really looking for help please answer the questions; especially about the pacman version and if you tried to run a -Syu. It's hard to get your words, but I assume you are trying to install packages with an old version of pacman fro your live system. No idea why you are doing this, but it's pretty easy to fix: update your system.

lilsirecho · 2010-03-14 00:28:00

Snowman: (30 packages in a folder called ARRAY)

Command line:

pacman -Ud /mnt/md/cache2/array/*

Error message:(system is french based so I interpret the error statement)

ffmpeg-(xxxxxxxx).pkg.tar.xz corrupt...cannot install

End of process occurs...no packages were installed.

Examination of the array packages shows four such xz extensions and the icons for them were unique for xz extensions.

This array was recently rebuilt, thus the problem occured from recent archlinux changes.EDIT: it performed well before the rebuild.

I suspect that the pacman -U command cannot be invoked for mixed format packages.

Last edited by lilsirecho (2010-03-14 00:31:10)

lilsirecho · 2010-03-14 00:36:27

Pierre:

I have described my use of pacman -U to install packages from a local repo in the form of a raid array into a live USB OS.

The system eliminates the download time for installing packages which are not used every day but are available in the local repo.

Now that the xz format has been adopted, the pacman -U function is not working as it has for two years.

No further comment..............

Allan · 2010-03-14 00:37:10

pacman -U can handle mixed formats.

Lets try again.... What is your pacman version?

Edit: if it is older than pacman 3.3.0-3 (2009-08) then you need to upgrade it to use .xz packages.

lilsirecho · 2010-03-14 00:41:16

Allan:

Pacman -3.3.3-1 FWIW
EDIT: This pacman info is inherent in archlinux when upgrades are made.

The pacman in use is not archlinux upgrade variety.

What is needed is info to make the Live OS respond to xz format and it uses pcmanfm,

So what is the secret to recognizing xz?

Last edited by lilsirecho (2010-03-14 00:46:42)

flamelab · 2010-03-14 00:42:10

lilsirecho wrote:

Pierre:
I have described my use of pacman -U to install packages from a local repo in the form of a raid array into a live USB OS.
The system eliminates the download time for installing packages which are not used every day but are available in the local repo.
Now that the xz format has been adopted, the pacman -U function is not working as it has for two years.
No further comment..............

You haven't provided any of the appropriate information needed in order to find out what happened.

Please:

1)Provide current xz-utils and pacman version [DONE]
2)Fully upgrade your system
3)Use an appropriate mirror (I recommend the mir.archlinux.fr when someone asks me) or ftp.ntua.gr
4)Redownload the packages

Last edited by flamelab (2010-03-14 00:42:31)

Allan · 2010-03-14 00:43:29

What packages are you trying to install and what is the md5sum of the package file?

.:B:. · 2010-03-14 01:01:21

lilsirecho wrote:

The pacman in use is not archlinux upgrade variety.

As most of your posts I'm not sure how this is to be read...

Do you mean you're not using Arch's pacman? But Frugal's?

lilsirecho · 2010-03-14 01:06:00

I have outlined the entire system I use to install cached packages.

The packages were installed in the cache today by direct download via pacman and some are xz format. I expected all to be .pkg.tar.gz. The xz packages do not permit my install of any of the packages since pacman sees them as corrupt.

The packages are feh which downloads as .gz, mirage which downloads as gz, and 28 packages of Vlc and depends of which fluidsynth, avahi, libpng and smbclient are xz format. Sometimes when trying other mirrors, the gz format may be encountered in one or more of the remaining vlc depends.

Pacman is pacman and it must do the same job on xz as well as gz but it doesn't do what it did last week and last month and last year while only gz was used.

What is in my archlinuxOS install has no bearing on the Live OS response to mixed pkg extensions which are occuring recently..

Am I making myself clear? I need to know how to fix pacman -U function in a LiveOS using a cachedir of newly-downloaded pacman packages...a problem introduced by archlinux compression options.

wonder · 2010-03-14 01:14:06

lilsirecho wrote:

Pacman is pacman and it must do the same job on xz as well as gz but it doesn't do what it did last week and last month and last year while only gz was used.
What is in my archlinuxOS install has no bearing on the Live OS response to mixed pkg extensions which are occuring recently..

i still cannot understand what live os are you talking about and if is arch live os or some fork.

Am I making myself clear? I need to know how to fix pacman -U function in a LiveOS using a cachedir of newly-downloaded pacman packages...a problem introduced by archlinux compression options.

simple. if you are not using pacman from archlinux, you can do that by recompiling libarchive with xz-utils support.

flamelab · 2010-03-14 01:17:13

Am I the only one that doesn't understand what is happening ? What is LiveOS ? That http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraLiv … eOS_README ?

lilsirecho · 2010-03-14 01:26:16

Many of the posts refer to normal archlinux troubleshooting activities.

This problem is with Live arch-based OS performance using pcmanfm which today cannot do what it did last week because the latest packages installed are xz extensions.

Please understand that the packages are to be installed, not in my hdd for archlinuxos but in a liveOS arch-based system cache repo which did perform correctly last week but after installing new upgrade packages in the repo today, the xz format is recognized as corrupt in all cases and the repo fails to install via pacman -U.

Please recognize that some change in pacman is required to enable recognizing xz as well as gz compression. What is the secret formula? Can I install the corrective package with the repo?

wonder · 2010-03-14 01:29:19

lilsirecho wrote:

Please recognize that some change in pacman is required to enable recognizing xz as well as gz compression. What is the secret formula? Can I install the corrective package with the repo?

i answered that already. get xz-utils, libarchive and pacman from our repository. all three are in pkg.tar.gz format

Allan · 2010-03-14 01:33:03

We do recognise that. Everyone is having a difficult time understanding this issue as we have no problems using a mixture of .xz and .gz packages.

What is the live os you are using? Are its packages straight from Arch?

Post the output of "pacman -Qi pacman libarchive".

lilsirecho · 2010-03-14 01:43:57

Wonder:

I appreciate your response and hope that you realize that I have been typing most of the hour or so on this thread.

You are the first to bring up the details for correcting the problem but I missed the first post you made while responding to other posts.

I may be able to install those packages before running the repo install.

Like my joke about placebos...their side effects are severe!! This problem isn't a normal pacman fail but a severe side effect of bleeding-edge linux on forked arch-based LiveOS systems.

I used this repo system years back with Faunos and would now but now it will not respond to xz format either.

Mahalo, merci, thanks.

lilsirecho · 2010-03-14 02:41:00

Loading the three packages solved the problem .

Merci buku.....

Arch Linux

#1 2010-03-13 21:45:25

Pacman download corrupt extension(Solved)

#2 2010-03-13 21:47:31

Re: Pacman download corrupt extension(Solved)

#3 2010-03-13 22:25:40

Re: Pacman download corrupt extension(Solved)

#4 2010-03-13 22:43:50

Re: Pacman download corrupt extension(Solved)

#5 2010-03-13 22:44:40

Re: Pacman download corrupt extension(Solved)

#6 2010-03-13 23:30:31

Re: Pacman download corrupt extension(Solved)

#7 2010-03-13 23:50:27

Re: Pacman download corrupt extension(Solved)

#8 2010-03-14 00:15:05

Re: Pacman download corrupt extension(Solved)

#9 2010-03-14 00:24:51

Re: Pacman download corrupt extension(Solved)

#10 2010-03-14 00:28:00

Re: Pacman download corrupt extension(Solved)

#11 2010-03-14 00:36:27

Re: Pacman download corrupt extension(Solved)

#12 2010-03-14 00:37:10

Re: Pacman download corrupt extension(Solved)

#13 2010-03-14 00:41:16

Re: Pacman download corrupt extension(Solved)

#14 2010-03-14 00:42:10

Re: Pacman download corrupt extension(Solved)

#15 2010-03-14 00:43:29

Re: Pacman download corrupt extension(Solved)

#16 2010-03-14 01:01:21

Re: Pacman download corrupt extension(Solved)

#17 2010-03-14 01:06:00

Re: Pacman download corrupt extension(Solved)

#18 2010-03-14 01:14:06

Re: Pacman download corrupt extension(Solved)

#19 2010-03-14 01:17:13

Re: Pacman download corrupt extension(Solved)

#20 2010-03-14 01:26:16

Re: Pacman download corrupt extension(Solved)

#21 2010-03-14 01:29:19

Re: Pacman download corrupt extension(Solved)

#22 2010-03-14 01:33:03

Re: Pacman download corrupt extension(Solved)

#23 2010-03-14 01:43:57

Re: Pacman download corrupt extension(Solved)

#24 2010-03-14 02:41:00

Re: Pacman download corrupt extension(Solved)

Board footer