FS#4744 - loading package data... load_pkg: missing package name in /var/cache/pacman/pkg/[...]
Attached to Project:
Pacman
Opened by kongokris 2 (nut543) - Wednesday, 31 May 2006, 00:40 GMT
Last edited by Roman Kyrylych (Romashka) - Wednesday, 03 January 2007, 23:19 GMT
Opened by kongokris 2 (nut543) - Wednesday, 31 May 2006, 00:40 GMT
Last edited by Roman Kyrylych (Romashka) - Wednesday, 03 January 2007, 23:19 GMT
|
Details
as experienced by these guys also:
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=7830&highlight=loading+package+data+loadpkg+missing+package+name http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=16463&highlight=loading+package+data+loadpkg+missing+package+name http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=15067&highlight=loading+package+data+loadpkg+missing+package+name http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=12427&highlight=loading+package+data+loadpkg+missing+package+name http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=10369&highlight=loading+package+data+loadpkg+missing+package+name and maybe this one: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=3319&highlight=loading+package+data+loadpkg+missing+package+name Nothing they tell in any of those threads solve the problem short off restarting the machine. I did a ps auxw. only thing "mysterious were: root 4936 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S 00:38 0:01 [pdflush] root 5002 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? S 00:38 0:00 [pdflush] which i couldn't kill. My machine has been up for a few days, then started and been running for 3 hours if that somehow is relevant.. |
This task depends upon
Closed by Aaron Griffin (phrakture)
Monday, 12 February 2007, 00:24 GMT
Reason for closing: Not a bug
Additional comments about closing: This is a not really a pacman bug, but a corruption issue
Monday, 12 February 2007, 00:24 GMT
Reason for closing: Not a bug
Additional comments about closing: This is a not really a pacman bug, but a corruption issue
:: Synchronizing package databases...
:: current is up to date
error: anonymous login failed
:: extra is up to date
error: anonymous login failed
:: unstable is up to date
:: community is up to date
shadowhand [################] 100% 4K 8.0K/s 00:00:00
:: testing is up to date
:: gvim: local (7.0-1) appears to be newer than repo (current/6.4-3)
:: hawknl: local (168-1) appears to be newer than repo (community/1.68-1)
:: nvidia: local (1.0.8762-1) appears to be newer than repo (extra/1.0.8178-16)
:: opera-devel: local (20060502.6-1) appears to be newer than repo (shadowhand/9.0b2-1)
:: vim: local (7.0-1) appears to be newer than repo (current/6.4-2)
:: Above packages will be skipped. To manually upgrade use 'pacman -S <pkg>'
Targets: gnome-common-2.12.0-4 gstreamer0.10-bad-0.10.3-1
gstreamer0.10-swfdec-0.10.3-1 libxfce4util-4.2.3.2-3
Total Package Size: 0.4 MB
Proceed with upgrade? [Y/n]
checking package integrity... done.
loading package data... load_pkg: missing package name in /var/cache/pacman/pkg/gnome-common-2.12.0-4.pkg.tar.gz.
maybe that means something...
kris|~$ dmesg|grep -4 XFS
hda: 234441648 sectors (120034 MB) w/2048KiB Cache, CHS=65535/16/63, UDMA(100)
hda: cache flushes supported
hda: hda1 hda2 < hda5 hda6 hda7 >
ide-floppy driver 0.99.newide
SGI XFS with ACLs, security attributes, large block numbers, no debug enabled
SGI XFS Quota Management subsystem
XFS mounting filesystem hda6
Ending clean XFS mount for filesystem: hda6
Freeing unused kernel memory: 244k freed
usbcore: registered new driver usbfs
usbcore: registered new driver hub
USB Universal Host Controller Interface driver v2.3
If that were the case it also means atleast 1, probably 2 and possibly everyone of the above thread people also should have had such a corruption.
The reason I listed the [pdflush] entries is because i usually never have them, if I remember correctly then I had them the last time I had this problem as well.
EDIT: Ignore that - package validation is on -A/-U operations. Still, pacman does validate with md5sums, but there's really nothing we can do about filesystem corruption.
I think this is closable.