Broken packages

WetGeek

These errors have been in my updates for a long time now:

# eopkg check | grep Broken
Checking integrity of nfs-utils Broken
Checking integrity of noto-sans-ttf Broken

I've been ignoring them, because the broken nfs-utils hasn't caused a problem with any of the nsf shares from my NAS, and I've never seen any issue that affects me that's caused by a broken noto-sans-ttf. But since they've been present for a long time, I thought it best to bring it to the team's attention. Perhaps others might be affected by these, but don't realize it.

davidjharder

WetGeek Have you tried re-installing those packages to see if this error persists? That's the usual fix

brent

you shouldn't see those errors if you sudo eopkg check instead.

WetGeek

brent you shouldn't see those errors if you sudo eopkg check instead.

$ sudo eopkg check | grep Broken
Password:
Checking integrity of nfs-utils Broken
Checking integrity of noto-sans-ttf Broken

brent

WetGeek wow my sudo vs. no sudo check has always been different long as I can remember. strange times.

WetGeek

brent wow my sudo vs. no sudo check has always been different long as I can remember

I don't advertise the fact that I sometines use the terminal as root. I don't want to encourage newer users who haven't worked as an admin and software engineer for decades. That's why I always make sure to use sudo when I post examples of commands here in the forum.

I slipped up this time, though and left the # prompt in my first example instead of a $ prompt. That aside, I would have bet money on the results being the same, no matter how the credentials were elevated.

brent

WetGeek I don't advertise the fact that I sometines use the terminal as root.

? we all have to for something, often.

528491

Do you know about this?
sudo eopkg check | grep Broken | awk '{print $4}' | xargs sudo eopkg it --reinstall

noto-sans-ttf was indeed suspicious for me too a few times.

WetGeek

528491 Do you know about this?

No, I hadn't seen that in the documentation. But I tried using my alias based on that in someone else's post a day or two ago, and realized it was not working. So I just copied the command from it and ran that by itself. I've been too busy with other issues lately (my Bluetooth not working) to fix it yet. It didn't fix anything.

WetGeek

davidjharder Have you tried re-installing those packages to see if this error persists?

Yes, and then ran the check afterwards with the same results. That's why I brought it to the team's attention.

528491

WetGeek It didn't fix anything.

The command doesn't work with other languages than english.
On my german system, eopkg reports "Beschädigt" instead of "Broken", so | grep Broken won't find any lines.

WetGeek

brent we all have to for something, often.

Indeed. In my first reply said I do it often. That's why it's edited -- I changed it to admit to doing it "sometimes."

528491

You reinstalled the packages and they are still broken?

WetGeek

528491 The command doesn't work with other languages than english.

Good point. I assume that Germans might want to use "Beschädigt" in their grep command. Apparently there are regional versions of eopkg - I never thought about that, but it makes sense. That why we give our location when we install a distro. Thank goodness for .po files.

riffer

noto-sans-ttf is broken for me on every install (Gnome).

eye4bear

Same here, just ran eopkg check and got this:

Checking integrity of noto-sans-ttf Broken
Missing file: /usr/share/fonts/conf.d/66-noto-color-emoji.conf
Running Solus Plasma - up to date

Staudey

Yes, there was an unfortunate mishap with noto-sans-ttf on the current ISOs. A reinstall should fix it though. If not, a manual full reinstallation usingsudo eopkg rm --ignore-dependency noto-sans-ttf followed by sudo eopkg it noto-sans-ttfshould do the trick.

WetGeek

Staudey Yes, there was an unfortunate mishap with noto-sans-ttf o

Indeed, that took care of noto-sans-ttf. Do you also have a solution for nfs-utills?

Staudey

WetGeek If a reinstall doesn't fix it, then it might just be that the tool modifies one or more of its own files every time, which will make the package check think it's broken. In that case it wouldn't constitute a problem but only a false positive of the check mechanism.
I'd have to take a closer look though whether that's the case.

WetGeek

Staudey I'd have to take a closer look though whether that's the case.

As I wrote in an earlier post, there isn't any apparent effect. Just the failure in a package check. My NAS has a bunch of nfs shares that mount just fine every time I do a mount -a.