Your message dated Sun, 1 Jan 2012 18:25:34 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#653860: reprepro: missing Release in debian-installer
directory
has caused the Debian Bug report #653860,
regarding reprepro: missing Release in debian-installer directory
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
653860: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=653860
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: reprepro
Version: 4.8.2-1
Severity: normaal
Hello reprepro maintainers,
When creating an udeb only aptable archive,
there is no Release file created in the debian-installer directory.
The Packages file is created. The regular aptable archive does
get a Release file and an empty Packages file.
It could be my ignorance, but to me it is strange behaviour of reprepro.
Creating a empty Package file, an unwanted / unneeded Release file
and neglecting to create the wanted / expected Release.
It is reproducable with the attached script.
Part of it output is:
aptablearchive/pool/main/a/anna/anna_1.33_mipsel.udeb
aptablearchive/dists/demo/Release
aptablearchive/dists/demo/main/binary-mipsel/Packages.gz
aptablearchive/dists/demo/main/binary-mipsel/Release
aptablearchive/dists/demo/main/binary-mipsel/Packages
aptablearchive/dists/demo/main/debian-installer/binary-mipsel/Packages.gz
aptablearchive/dists/demo/main/debian-installer/binary-mipsel/Packages
What is needed for a Release file in the debian-installer directory?
Cheers
Geert Stappers
-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 3.1.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=nl_NL.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=nl_NL.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Versions of packages reprepro depends on:
ii libarchive1 2.8.5-5 Multi-format archive and compressi
ii libbz2-1.0 1.0.6-1 high-quality block-sorting file co
ii libc6 2.13-24 Embedded GNU C Library: Shared lib
ii libdb5.1 5.1.29-1 Berkeley v5.1 Database Libraries [
ii libgpg-error0 1.10-1 library for common error values an
ii libgpgme11 1.2.0-1.4 GPGME - GnuPG Made Easy
ii zlib1g 1:1.2.3.4.dfsg-3 compression library - runtime
Versions of packages reprepro recommends:
ii apt 0.8.15.9 Advanced front-end for dpkg
Versions of packages reprepro suggests:
pn gnupg-agent <none> (no description available)
pn inoticoming <none> (no description available)
pn lzip <none> (no description available)
ii lzma 4.43-14 Compression method of 7z format in
ii xz-utils 5.0.0-2 XZ-format compression utilities
-- no debconf information
----- End forwarded message -----
--
Groeten
Geert Stappers
--
> And is there a policy on top-posting vs. bottom-posting?
Yes.
#!/bin/bash
#
rm -rf demo # fresh start
mkdir demo # new directory
cd demo
mkdir conf aptablearchive
#
cat << HERE > conf/distributions
#
Origin: demo
Label: demo
Suite: stable
Codename: demo
Version: 3.14159
Architectures: mipsel
Components: main
UDebComponents: main
Description: Just for Demonstrating purpose
# SignWith: nope
DebOverride: override
UDebOverride: override
#
# l l
HERE
echo '# logically empty' > conf/override
# get an udeb
U=anna_1.33_mipsel.udeb
wget -q http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian/pool/main/a/anna/${U}
# now reproduce a repository
reprepro --basedir ./ \
--outdir ./aptablearchive/ \
--component main \
includeudeb demo ${U}
echo All files:
find aptablearchive -type f
echo Releases:
find aptablearchive -name Release
echo 'Packages (plus size):'
find aptablearchive -name Packages -ls
#
echo '# suggested clean up: rm -rf demo'
#
# l l
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Happy New year, the best wishes for 2012
On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 12:52:54PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Geert Stappers <[email protected]> [111231 18:12]:
<snip/>
> >
> > It could be my ignorance, but to me it is strange behaviour of reprepro.
> > Creating a empty Package file, an unwanted / unneeded Release file
> > and neglecting to create the wanted / expected Release.
>
> Reprepro does not support a udeb-only archive, you can only have a
> deb+udeb archive (thus the empty Package file outside debian-installer).
Ah, now I got it.
It is a good design decision.
Thanks for explaining it.
> The Release file in debian-installer is not created because when I wrote
> that part of the code the Debian archive did not have a Release file
> there either (The format of the Debian archive is not documented at all
> and changes quite a lot).
Acknowlegde.
> > What is needed for a Release file in the debian-installer directory?
>
> To have a Release file generated, it should be enough to add the proper
> UDebIndices field. (Take a look at the manpage and use the DebIndices
> default as UDebIndices value).
Yes! Adding the line
UDebIndices: Packages Release . .gz
to conf/distributions did create a Release file in the d-i directory.
Thank you for directing me to the right part of the fine manual.
The CC to [email protected] is to close this "bugreport".
Groeten
Geert Stappers
--
> And is there a policy on top-posting vs. bottom-posting?
Yes.
--- End Message ---
