Your message dated Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:04:57 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#170492: dpkg-dev: scanpackages
has caused the attached Bug report 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 I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.10.9
I have a rather interesting problem. According to the
APT How To
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/apt-howto/ch-basico.en.html#s-dpkg-scanpackages
I can use
dpkg-scanpackages /debs * > /debs/packages
OR
dpkg-scanpackages /debs * | gzip > /debs/packages.gz
to get package information for dselect to use.
I have two machines:
486 with isa modem
P3 with winmodem
Both have debian 2.2.19pre17 loaded.
Using "dpkg -i" to install "dpkg-dev_1.10.9_all.deb"
on either machine results in six dependancy problems,
so they are likely equivalent update & package wise.
I have used "dpkg -x dpkg-dev* /" to get the binaries
and man pages for the "dpkg-scan????" commands I need.
The 486 might possibly have some newer files since I
was able to get the modem to work to acquire package
info, and update base files etc, although I'm not sure
this has been done. The commands above DO NOT work on
this machine.
The P3 likely does NOT have newer files since I cannot
get the modem to work to acquire package info. The
commands above DO work on this machine.
I find it a little confusing that the states of the
machines software wise is essentially the same, yet
one command works on one and not the other. Also, it
is strange that the machine likely to have older files
is the one on which the command does work!
Got any suggestions as to why? Is there something
particular to "dpkg-scan????" that I need to load or
look for which may be different on each machine? It
seems to me if just extracting the binaries works on
one, it should also work on the other (lazily
ass-uming)
Cheers,
Christopher
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
On Sat, 2002-11-23 at 20:18:43 -0800, Christopher Buckley wrote:
> Package: dpkg-dev
> Version: 1.10.9
> I have a rather interesting problem. According to the
> APT How To
>
> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/apt-howto/ch-basico.en.html#s-dpkg-scanpackages
> I can use
>
> dpkg-scanpackages /debs * > /debs/packages
>
> OR
>
> dpkg-scanpackages /debs * | gzip > /debs/packages.gz
>
> to get package information for dselect to use.
Those two invokations are bogus, the second argument is an override
file (and a possible third one is a path-prefix), not whatever is on
the current dir, which could be anything.
> I have two machines:
>
> 486 with isa modem
> P3 with winmodem
>
> Both have debian 2.2.19pre17 loaded.
I assume tha was the version of the linux kernel?
> Using "dpkg -i" to install "dpkg-dev_1.10.9_all.deb"
> on either machine results in six dependancy problems,
> so they are likely equivalent update & package wise.
You didn't list what those problems were.
> The 486 might possibly have some newer files since I
> was able to get the modem to work to acquire package
> info, and update base files etc, although I'm not sure
> this has been done. The commands above DO NOT work on
> this machine.
You didn't list why it didn't work, but given that the invokation is
bogus I'm closing this bug report as such. Feel free to reopen with
more informaton if this is really a bug on our side!
> The P3 likely does NOT have newer files since I cannot
> get the modem to work to acquire package info. The
> commands above DO work on this machine.
> I find it a little confusing that the states of the
> machines software wise is essentially the same, yet
> one command works on one and not the other. Also, it
> is strange that the machine likely to have older files
> is the one on which the command does work!
Most probably what changed was the content of the current dir.
regards,
guillem
--- End Message ---
