dpkg bug (was: Missing: sqlite packages)

[Colin Watson]

On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 11:18:15AM -0500, Martin Maney wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 10:43:35AM -0500, Martin Maney wrote:
> > libsqlite0 is in warty, presumably in support of the python bindings. 
> 
> I think this may explain some things that have confused me before. 
> dpkg --list appears to behave inconsistently in warty.  A few samples
> (headers omitted):
> 
> maney at dop3 ~ $ dpkg --list \*emacs\*
> 
> un  emacs          <none>         (no description available)
> ii  emacs21        21.3+1-5ubuntu The GNU Emacs editor
> ii  emacs21-bin-co 21.3+1-5ubuntu The GNU Emacs editor's shared, architecture 
> ii  emacs21-common 21.3+1-5ubuntu The GNU Emacs editor's shared, architecture 
> un  emacs21-el     <none>         (no description available)
> un  emacs21-nox    <none>         (no description available)
> un  emacsen        <none>         (no description available)
> ii  emacsen-common 1.4.15         Common facilities for all emacsen.
> un  xemacs-support <none>         (no description available)
> 
> Shows both installed and uninstalled packages as I would expect (but
> why does it show packages which are, as far as I know, not-installed,
> as unpacked?  hmmmm...)
> 
> Here's the one that led me astray just now:
> 
> maney at dop3 ~ $ dpkg --list \*sqlite\*
> 
> ii  libsqlite0     2.8.13-3       SQLite shared library
> ii  python-sqlite  0.4.3-2        Python interface to SQLite
> ii  python2.3-sqli 0.4.3-2        Python interface to SQLite
> 
> No sign of the uninstalled but available packages here.

Sounds like 'dselect update' is required. This is basically the result
of an old disagreement between the respective authors of dpkg and apt,
as far as I can tell. It wouldn't be that hard for 'apt-get update' to
update /var/lib/dpkg/available while it's at it ...

> BTW, I tried buggyzilla again, and it tossed up a mess of irrelevancies
> on a search for "dpkg".  Is there some trick I've overlooked to get it
> to search by package?  I get so annoyed with it that I could be
> overlooking something obvious.  ;-(

The search form has a component selector.

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson                                    [cjwatson at canonical.com]