Is anybody else unable to use the newest version of pkgtools, listed in
the 24jan05 Current changelog? The package is pkgtools-10.1.0-i486-2.tgz.

When I select the Remove option, I get a rapidly scrolling list of
filenames, then the standard "Package Removed" message that normally
follows a successful package removal. However, this happens without my
having chosen any packages for removal.

I had to revert to pkgtools-10.1.0-i486-1.tgz (from Nov. 2004) to be able
to use pkgtools.

Note that this is different from the View problem that others have
previously reported with pkgtools 10.1.

Is it just my system, or are there others with this same problem?

Thanks.

raoul wrote:

> Is anybody else unable to use the newest version of pkgtools, listed in
> the 24jan05 Current changelog? The package is pkgtools-10.1.0-i486-2.tgz.
>
> When I select the Remove option, I get a rapidly scrolling list of
> filenames, then the standard "Package Removed" message that normally
> follows a successful package removal. However, this happens without my
> having chosen any packages for removal.
>
> I had to revert to pkgtools-10.1.0-i486-1.tgz (from Nov. 2004) to be able
> to use pkgtools.
>
> Note that this is different from the View problem that others have
> previously reported with pkgtools 10.1.
>
> Is it just my system, or are there others with this same problem?
>
> Thanks.

there's a thread on linuxquestions slackware's forum..
in my system I have no problem at all after upgrade
really strange...hey this pkgtool works very fast!

--
Fede

.... Logically incoherent, semantically incomprehensible, and legally ...
impeccable!

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:15:24 +0000, mangus wrote:

> raoul wrote:
>
>> Is anybody else unable to use the newest version of pkgtools, listed in
>> the 24jan05 Current changelog? The package is pkgtools-10.1.0-i486-2.tgz.
>>
>> When I select the Remove option, I get a rapidly scrolling list of
>> filenames, then the standard "Package Removed" message that normally
>> follows a successful package removal. However, this happens without my
>> having chosen any packages for removal.
>>
>> I had to revert to pkgtools-10.1.0-i486-1.tgz (from Nov. 2004) to be able
>> to use pkgtools.
>>
>> Note that this is different from the View problem that others have
>> previously reported with pkgtools 10.1.
>> [snip]

> there's a thread on linuxquestions slackware's forum..
> in my system I have no problem at all after upgrade
> really strange...hey this pkgtool works very fast!

It turns out the problem was due to my having a number of non-standard
package descriptions. I had compiled a lot of things from source and then
used checkinstall to install them. Checkinstall prompts you for a package
description, so I supplied some info that meant something to me but which
-- I now know -- did not follow the Slackware package standard. The latest
version of pkgtool apparently trips up on non-standard package
descriptions. I edited the descriptions to conform to the Slackware
standard, and now it works fine. As you say, it's much faster.

I think the maintainer-developer is going to issue a fix in case there are
others like me who used non-standard descriptions in their home-made
packages, or who installed other non-standard third-party packages.

For my part, I was glad to get things in conformity with fairly stringent
-- in spite of the name -- Slackware standard.

raoul wrote:


> It turns out the problem was due to my having a number of non-standard
> package descriptions. I had compiled a lot of things from source and then
> used checkinstall to install them. Checkinstall prompts you for a package
> description, so I supplied some info that meant something to me but which
> -- I now know -- did not follow the Slackware package standard. The latest
> version of pkgtool apparently trips up on non-standard package
> descriptions. I edited the descriptions to conform to the Slackware
> standard, and now it works fine. As you say, it's much faster.
>
> I think the maintainer-developer is going to issue a fix in case there are
> others like me who used non-standard descriptions in their home-made
> packages, or who installed other non-standard third-party packages.
>
> For my part, I was glad to get things in conformity with fairly stringent
> -- in spite of the name -- Slackware standard.

me too I heavly maneged my box with compiling lot of thing by myself using
checkinstall thousand times and I don't have this problem...
when checkinstall prompt me about the package description I enter only the
current date! like 26/01/2005 and only this
Uhm...strange really..


--
Fede

.... Logically incoherent, semantically incomprehensible, and legally ...
impeccable!

raoul wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:15:24 +0000, mangus wrote:
>
> It turns out the problem was due to my having a number of non-standard
> package descriptions. I had compiled a lot of things from source and then
> used checkinstall to install them. Checkinstall prompts you for a package
> description, so I supplied some info that meant something to me but which
> -- I now know -- did not follow the Slackware package standard. The latest
> version of pkgtool apparently trips up on non-standard package
> descriptions. I edited the descriptions to conform to the Slackware
> standard, and now it works fine. As you say, it's much faster.
>

Can you post an example of what a "correct" description would be and what an
"incorrect" one looks like?

Al C.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In alt.os.linux.slackware, Al. C dared to utter,
> Can you post an example of what a "correct" description would be and what an
> "incorrect" one looks like?

cat /home/slackware/slackware-current/source/a/aaa_base/slack-desc
# HOW TO EDIT THIS FILE:
# The "handy ruler" below makes it easier to edit a package description. Line
# up the first '|' above the ':' following the base package name, and the '|'
# on the right side marks the last column you can put a character in. You must
# make exactly 11 lines for the formatting to be correct. It's also
# customary to leave one space after the ':'.

|-----handy-ruler------------------------------------------------------|
aaa_base: aaa_base (Basic Linux filesystem package)
aaa_base:
aaa_base: Sets up the empty directory tree for Slackware and adds an email to
aaa_base: root's mailbox welcoming them to Linux. This package should be
aaa_base: installed first, and never uninstalled.
aaa_base:
aaa_base:
aaa_base:
aaa_base:
aaa_base:
aaa_base:

123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789|

Anything that doesn't conform to that standard is incorrect. Note that
the length of the valid lines changes depending on how many characters
the base package name is. Note that the total length of any one line
cannot exceed 80 ASCII characters.

123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789 123456789|
|-----handy-ruler------------------------------------------------------|

I'm not entirely sure why Pat chose to do the description files in this
way. It would seem more appropriate to remove the package name from
the left and thus get a full 80 character description instead of
80 - ( $PACKAGE_NAME_LENGTH + 1 ). Anyone else care to send a Clue
this way?

- --
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFB+FCjlKR45I6cfKARAt2AAJ0XSk3j47Vf0aFO2JMbYw 52UVfgdQCfaIxp
2rnwMyetxDMMJWn5fGl4v7Y=
=k2GO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 2005-01-27, Al. C <no.spam.acanton@take.out.adams-blake.no.spam.com> wrote:

> Can you post an example of what a "correct" description would be and what an
> "incorrect" one looks like?

"the perfect package"......

http://makeashorterlink.com/?R3CA2555A

nb

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:25:47 +0000, mangus wrote:

> me too I heavly maneged my box with compiling lot of thing by myself using
> checkinstall thousand times and I don't have this problem...
> when checkinstall prompt me about the package description I enter only the
> current date! like 26/01/2005 and only this
> Uhm...strange really..

Did you try to use the latest pkgtool version (pkgtools-10.1.0-i486-2.tgz)
from the 24 Jan 2005 changelog?

Do your non-standard package descriptions sometimes include two
occurrences of the label "PACKAGE DESCRIPTION:"? Mine did. Checkinstall
apparently inserted an extra section label, for some reason. I'm wondering
if this was the main problem and perhaps not the failure to
otherwise follow the strict Slackware format.

I'll run a couple of tests and see.