after removing apt-listbugs interactively, aptitude is unable to execute
any further package manipulation batch because it can't call ...
surprise, apt-listbugs!

/bin/sh: /usr/sbin/apt-listbugs: not found
E: Sub-process /usr/sbin/apt-listbugs apt || exit 10 returned an error code (10)
E: Failure running script /usr/sbin/apt-listbugs apt || exit 10
A package failed to install.  Trying to recover:
Press return to continue.

upon removal, apt-listbugs renames /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/10apt-listbugs to
/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/10apt-listbugs.disabled, but even moving that file
out of the way doesn't help; it seems it's necessary to quit aptitude
altogether and start it up anew (and then 10apt-listbugs.disabled is not
a problem either).

so perhaps aptitude should check / reload the apt configuration after every
install/remove batch?

Hi all,

2008-06-11 19:10 Jamey Sharp:

I tried to reproduce this (with apt-listchanges and apt-listbugs, from
the merged bug report).  When purging the file that they install is
removed now, rather than disabled.

With apt-listchanges, it just emits an error:

  Performing actions...
  /bin/sh: 1: /usr/bin/apt-listchanges: not found
  (Reading database ... 210066 files and directories currently installed.)

So the problem looks very very minor, perhaps with apt-listbugs or
others is more severe.

apt assumes that sessions are not "reused" since it works by single
invokations, but aptitude is mostly interactive.

I don't think that it's very feasible to re-read the config, because
after reading the config from apt in the beggining, aptitude adds
configuration on top (temporary for that session only, sometimes), so it
would basically need to be "restarted" again internally even if not
explicitly, so I don't think that there's much advantage.

The number of applications modifying apt's config or the frequency of
their installations should not very high, perhaps once every few years
in each system even if using these tools, so one of the suggested
solutions of re-reading it after every installation of any package seems
quite overkill to me, and the time investment needed quite high for
little benefit.

So at the moment I am leaning towards a +wontfix, leaving it open for
further consideration.


Cheers.