Maurits van Rees wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 07:39:23PM -0500, Eric P wrote: > >>Hmm... maybe I just fixed it. I uninstalled the 'at' package, and >>apt-get no longer complains. > > > You may want to try reinstalling it now and see if things continue to > work normally. On my sarge system 'at' and 'apt-get' work perfectly > happy together. 'at' is an important package according to apt-cache: > > $ apt-cache show at > Package: at > Priority: important > Section: admin > Installed-Size: 204 > Maintainer: Ryan Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Architecture: i386 > Version: 3.1.8-11 > Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4), mail-transport-agent > Filename: pool/main/a/at/at_3.1.8-11_i386.deb > Size: 37918 > MD5sum: b5cc860f93a0f25e71d92dad23988c12 > Description: Delayed job execution and batch processing > At and batch read shell commands from standard input > storing them as a job to be scheduled for execution in the > future. > . > Use > at to run the job at a specified time > batch to run the job when system load levels permit > > > Of course when at makes your apt system unstable its priority gets > considerably lower. ;-) > > 'at' is depended on by the following packages: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp$ apt-cache rdepends at > at > Reverse Depends: > usermin-at > mirror > lsb-core > gato > > Most important at first glance seems to be lsb-core. From apt-cache > show lsb-core: > > The Linux Standard Base (http://www.linuxbase.org/) is a standard > core system that third-party applications written for Linux can > depend upon. > > Okay, I don't have that one installed apparently; I'll go do that > now. ;-) >
I reinstalled. Previously problems are gone. Thanks for replying. Eric P -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
