FS#19342 - ERROR: ask_checklist makes only sense if you specify at least one thing...

Attached to Project: Release Engineering
Opened by Scott Mansell (phire) - Monday, 03 May 2010, 13:08 GMT
Last edited by Dieter Plaetinck (Dieter_be) - Friday, 09 March 2012, 15:20 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category AIF
Status Closed
Assigned To No-one
Architecture i686
Severity Medium
Priority Normal
Reported Version 2009.08
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

ERROR: ask_checklist makes only sense if you specify at least one thing (tag, item, and ON/OFF switch)

I'm getting this very cryptic error message when I try to use the i686 ftp install iso to install arch in Virtual Box 3.1.6. It happens after I select step 4 (choose package groups) and choose ok.

Screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/py145.png

This topic ( http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=79962 ) on the forum suggest it might be a problem with networking, but I've checked and I can ping google fine.
This task depends upon

Closed by  Dieter Plaetinck (Dieter_be)
Friday, 09 March 2012, 15:20 GMT
Reason for closing:  Fixed
Comment by Scott Mansell (phire) - Monday, 03 May 2010, 13:11 GMT
I finally managed to work around this by selecting a http mirror instead of a ftp mirror. I'm guessing that ftp was having problems to get through 2 NAT firewalls (my Router, and Virtual Box).

But the error message is still very cryptic.
Comment by Dieter Plaetinck (Dieter_be) - Thursday, 09 December 2010, 10:38 GMT
Hi Scott,
this happens because aif wants you make check packages from a list, but the package list is empty.
This is probably caused by a call of the function list_packages returning 0 (exit code for ok) but no results in the output.
What the reason for that is, I'm not sure.
Probably one of:
1) network failure connecting to, or getting data from the mirror
2) no mirror configured in pacman config (because of a bug in AIF) (I need to check if this indeed causes pacman to exit (0))

Either way, 1) seems most likely to me, and I know this is a known issue. But for that we need  FS#15369  fixed.
Comment by Dieter Plaetinck (Dieter_be) - Tuesday, 17 January 2012, 10:22 GMT
would it be possible to confirm this is fixed? it's probably hard to reproduce the exact networking issues that were going on at the time...
this should be fixed because  FS#15369  is fixed.
Comment by Dieter Plaetinck (Dieter_be) - Friday, 09 March 2012, 15:19 GMT
no response, assuming fixed.

Loading...