Arch Linux

Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
Tasklist

FS#32942 - [pacman] upgrading the system twice first fails, then succeeds

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Andy Spencer (andy753421) - Sunday, 02 December 2012, 22:05 GMT
Last edited by Allan McRae (Allan) - Thursday, 13 December 2012, 11:01 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Packages: Core
Status Closed
Assigned To Allan McRae (Allan)
Dave Reisner (falconindy)
Architecture All
Severity Very Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

Description:
Pacman successfully performs a system upgrade immediately after failing to perform a system upgrade

Steps to reproduce:
1. Attempt to perform a system upgrade
- pacman fails to perform system upgrade and claims that no packages were upgraded
2. Attempt to perform a system upgrade
- pacman successfully performs system upgrade

Expected results:
Pacman deterministicly fails to perform system upgrade

See attached log file for details
   pacman.txt (9.9 KiB)
This task depends upon

Closed by  Allan McRae (Allan)
Thursday, 13 December 2012, 11:01 GMT
Reason for closing:  None
Additional comments about closing:  Fix /var/run...
Comment by Dave Reisner (falconindy) - Sunday, 02 December 2012, 22:18 GMT
Isn't the "cause" obvious? filesystem is the problematic package and it isn't included the 2nd time around -- the database entry was already written so it's considered upgraded already when you run pacman the second time.

if you want to test determinism, you have to actually repeat the same transaction, not just the same command.

I also suggest you fix your broken system and replace /var/run with a symlink.
Comment by Andy Spencer (andy753421) - Sunday, 02 December 2012, 22:43 GMT
I guess my concern is about the "Errors occurred, no packages were upgraded" line.

From the log, I would assume that the filesystem package was not installed, but then it wasn't attempted again. Did it actually get installed, but just say that it was aborted, or was it marked as installed but not fully installed, etc?
Comment by Darshit Shah (darnir) - Monday, 03 December 2012, 04:54 GMT
This issue is quite rare when pacman fails to upgrade after going through the checks. AFAIK, that line is hardcoded to be printed upon all errors. Maybe that single line could be changed.
But your Bugreport is definitely wrong.
Comment by Alexander F. Rødseth (xyproto) - Sunday, 09 December 2012, 22:21 GMT
Just out of curiosity, since I maintain plan9port, is there a particular reason for why it is ignored at upgrade? Is there something wrong with it?
Comment by Andy Spencer (andy753421) - Sunday, 09 December 2012, 23:12 GMT
Alexander, I had some errors with the plan9port install but please don't worry about those because they are fixed now and were most likely specific to my system.
Comment by Alexander F. Rødseth (xyproto) - Monday, 10 December 2012, 00:47 GMT
Okay, thanks Andy.
Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Thursday, 13 December 2012, 11:01 GMT
OK... to "fix" this on your system you need to deal with /var/run. "rm -rf /var/run /var/lock && pacman -S filesystem" then reboot. Then you will never see this error again.

I am closing this an will open separate bug reports in the pacman section of the tracker dealing with issues raised.

Loading...