Control: tag -1 + moreinfo Hi,
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 14:14:43 +0000 Ian Jackson <[email protected]> wrote: > Roger Leigh writes ("Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#727011: sbuild insists on > doing apt-get update"): > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 03:10:58PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > But it still does apt-get update. > > > > I'll have to check in more detail, but I think that this is an > > artifact of using the apt or aptitude resolver: after creating the > > temporary archive with apt-ftparchive, we need to update apt. By > > default this does not (or at least should not) perform a full update. > > If you set APT_UPDATE_ARCHIVE_ONLY ($apt_update_archive_only = 0) > > then it should do a full update. > > You mean if you set it to 1 it should perform fewer updates ? I'm > confused. > > > Please could you retry with and without this setting enabled? It > > would be great to have debug logs for both cases as you provided here. > > The previous log was done with "$apt_update_archive_only = 0" (in > ~/.sbuildrc). I ran it again with "$apt_update_archive_only = 1", and > now it is much better. See Xterm.log.zealot.2013.11.17.14.00.11.27825 > (attached). > > I'm pretty sure, though, that I only changed this (if I did at all) in > an attempt to try to make it not do an apt-update. > > Let me try again ... > > ... I ran it again with the package's supplied sbuild.conf and no > .sbuildrc and it did do the apt-get update. > Xterm.log.zealot.2013.11.17.14.00.11.27825-2. > > I just edited sbuild.conf to add: > $apt_update = 0; > and that fixed it. Xterm.log.zealot.2013.11.17.14.00.11.27825-3. > > If this is how it is supposed to work, sorry for being confused. I'd expect that setting $apt_update to 0 should do the trick. Is there still a bug or can this be closed? Thanks! cheers, josch
signature.asc
Description: signature
