I've recived thousands of that e-mails in the last two days. Could you stop this flood please?
Thanks, joke On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 05:51:48PM -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > deity-digest Digest Volume 101 : Issue 43 > > Today's Topics: > Processed: [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug T ] > Re: Bug#42779: apt: apt-cdrom doesn' [ Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] > Bug#41784: apt-get busy loops fixing [ Giuliano Procida <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> ] > Re: gnome-apt [ Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ] > Re: Bug#41784: apt-get busy loops fi [ Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] > WARNING: APT removes bash on slink u [ Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] > Re: Bug#42779: apt: apt-cdrom doesn' [ Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] > Bug#42719: marked as done (No approp [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug T ] > Re: WARNING: APT removes bash on sli [ Thomas Quinot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Bug#42891: apt-get should understand [ Decklin Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: WARNING: APT removes bash on sli [ Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > APT vs DSELECT ? [ Guy Hulbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > bogus dependency [ Bernd Kreimeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] > Re: bogus dependency [ Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] > Re: bogus dependency [ Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: gnome-apt [ Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] > Bug#42723: wish for apt [ "Darren/Torin/Who Ever..." <[EMAIL > PROTECTED] ] > Bug#43130: apt: weird progressmeter [ Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ] > apt-move script? [ Sander Smeenk <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Building CVS apt [ Matt Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Bug#41839: apt: apt-get reinstalls p [ Thomas Schoepf <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Bug#41839: apt: apt-get reinstalls p [ Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] > Bug#41839: apt: apt-get reinstalls p [ Thomas Schoepf <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Bug#43251: apt: desc.apt has typo [ Tatsuya Maruyama <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ] > Bug#43275: apt: apt does not offer t [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Data socket timeouts [ Levi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Bug#43286: apt installing virtual pk [ Amy Fong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: Data socket timeouts [ Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] > Re: Bug#42779: apt: apt-cdrom doesn' [ Georg Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Bug#43356: apt: security [ Lazarus Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Bug#43368: gnome-apt: gnome-apt does [ Enterprise Mail Account <[EMAIL > PROTECTED] ] > apt-get and rproxy [ Matthew Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Syntax error in description file [ Michele Dalla Silvestra <[EMAIL > PROTECTED] ] > Re: apt-get and rproxy [ Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] > Re: Bug#43368: gnome-apt: gnome-apt [ Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ] > Bug#43476: apt-get doesn't honour no [ David Luyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: Bug#43368: gnome-apt: gnome-apt [ "Oliver Elphick" <[email protected]> ] > Help request : apt & firewall [ Vandoorselaere Yoann <[EMAIL > PROTECTED] ] > Re: Bug#43368: gnome-apt: gnome-apt [ Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ] > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System) > To: Remco van de Meent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: APT Development Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>(apt #42780) > Subject: Processed: > > Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > severity #42780 fixed > Bug#42780: apt: apt-get has problems with file:/ types > Severity set to `fixed'. > > > thanks > Stopping processing here. > > Please contact me if you need assistance. > > Ian Jackson > (administrator, Debian bugs database) > From: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Georg Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], APT Development Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Bug#42779: apt: apt-cdrom doesn't scan CD right > > On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, Georg Bauer wrote: > > > On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 08:50:14 -0600 (MDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Gunthorpe) > > wrote: > > > > >Try this with the other version and if it works then it is just more > > >defectiveness from that version, otherwise you'll have to look at that CD > > >a little more closely for me, send over a ls -lR /cdrom1/ > > > > Still the same (the mountpoint has changed, but that should be irrelevant): > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sudo apt-cdrom -m -d /home/ftp/cdrom1 add > > Using CD-ROM mount point /home/ftp/cdrom1/ > > Identifying.. [6b6f3b8d3d26e1f4c32eb23d1ba3f9d2-2] > > Scanning Disc for index files.. Found 0 package index files. > > E: Unable to locate any package files, perhaps this is not a Debian Disc > > > > ls -lR is attached as gzipped textfile. > > Bah, better send a strace too :< > > Jason > From: Giuliano Procida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Bug#41784: apt-get busy loops fixing dependencies > > This has just happened to me as well (same version of apt-get). Let me > know whether you want the status files etc. > > hilfy# apt-get -qudy dselect-upgrade > Reading Package Lists... > Building Dependency Tree... > You might want to run `apt-get -f install' to correct these. > Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies: > gconv-modules: Depends: libc6 (= 2.1.2-0pre2) but 2.1.2-0pre7 is installed > console-tools: Depends: console-tools-libs (= 1:0.2.1-1) but 1:0.2.1-2 is > installed > E: Unmet dependencies. Try using -f. > hilfy# apt-get -fqudy dselect-upgrade > Reading Package Lists... > Building Dependency Tree... > Correcting dependencies... > > Giuliano. > From: Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: Guilherme Soares Zahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Bernhard Rieder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Debian User List <[email protected]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: gnome-apt > > On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Havoc Pennington wrote: > > > > > the kind of thing that would cause a compile failure. It was just a change > > > in library semantics. So gnome-apt wasn't checking for all the proper > > > circumstances. > > > > Was there? Hmm.. > > > > Yeah the pkgAcquire::Run can return cancelled. I think I made that change > actually, but I could have sworn I updated gnome-apt to reflect it; I > don't know how I didn't. Blah. > > I wish egcs would warn about using an enum as a bool... > > Havoc > From: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Giuliano Procida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc: [email protected], > APT Development Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Bug#41784: apt-get busy loops fixing dependencies > > On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, Giuliano Procida wrote: > > > This has just happened to me as well (same version of apt-get). Let me > > know whether you want the status files etc. > > This has been fixed in the cvs version.. If you use dpkg to configure the > packages that are half-installed it will go away - or you can test > apt 0.3.11.1 at http://www.debian.org/~jgg/ > > Jason > From: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Debian Developers <[email protected]>, > Debian Users List <[email protected]>, > Deity Creation Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: WARNING: APT removes bash on slink upgrade > > Package: bash > Version: 2.02.1-1.5 > > Hi all, > > The current bash/libreadline dependencies in potato are formed in an > conflicts/pre-depends loop that causes APT to remove bash, install > libreadlineg2 and then try to reinstall bash (which fails because bash > needs bash to install [remove actually]..) Newer APTs were supposed to > warn about this situation, but even that seems broken - so be carefull! > > This is due to a recent bash NMU which now pre-depends on the potato > libreadlineg2 which conflicts with the slink bash. > > Bash -MUST- be re-uploaded with the proper changes made so that it can > exist with the slink libreadlineg2 ASAP. > > Jason > From: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Georg Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], APT Development Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Bug#42779: apt: apt-cdrom doesn't scan CD right > > On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, Georg Bauer wrote: > > > On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 13:42:11 -0600 (MDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Gunthorpe) > > wrote: > > > > >Bah, better send a strace too :< > > > > Ok, attached. out1.gz is stdout, out2.gz is stderr. Have fun ;-) > > Yes, I see the problem now. These CDs are Evil and do not contain the > 'Packages' file, only the .gz version. Fortunately, I belive my new new > code actually handles this.. > > Try the apt 0.3.11.1 from http://www.debian.org/~jgg/ - it should > hopefully work. > > Jason > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System) > To: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: APT Development Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Bug#42719: marked as done (No appropriate error message when trying > to apt-get install kdelibs2g) > > Your message dated Thu, 12 Aug 1999 01:08:52 -0600 (MDT) > with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > and subject line No appropriate error message when trying to apt-get install > kdelibs2g > 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'm > talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration > somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) > > Ian Jackson > (administrator, Debian bugs database) > > Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 9 Aug 1999 16:42:21 +0000 > Received: (qmail 14268 invoked from network); 9 Aug 1999 16:42:19 -0000 > Received: from mout0.01019freenet.de ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > by master.debian.org with SMTP; 9 Aug 1999 16:42:19 -0000 > Received: from [62.104.201.2] (helo=mx1.01019freenet.de) > by mout0.01019freenet.de with esmtp (Exim 3.03 #1) > id 11DsTW-0002HP-00 > for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 09 Aug 1999 18:40:38 +0200 > Received: from [194.97.109.169] (helo=zappa.roka.net) > by mx1.01019freenet.de with smtp (Exim 3.03 #1) > id 11DsTV-0007ks-00 > for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 09 Aug 1999 18:40:37 +0200 > Received: (qmail 29884 invoked by uid 1000); 9 Aug 1999 16:40:13 -0000 > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Rainer Nagel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: No appropriate error message when trying to apt-get install kdelibs2g > From: Marc Packenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Organization: roka EDV und Datenkommunikationsberatung GmbH > Date: 09 Aug 1999 18:40:13 +0200 > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Lines: 29 > User-Agent: Gnus/5.070095 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.95) XEmacs/21.1 (20 Minutes to > Nikko) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > Hi! > > Using potato: > > zappa:/etc/qmail# uname -a > Linux zappa 2.2.10 #7 Mon Jul 19 14:20:54 CEST 1999 i686 unknown > zappa:/etc/qmail# apt-get --version > apt 0.3.11 for i386 compiled on Jun 28 1999 21:59:55 > zappa:/etc/qmail# dpkg -l \*kdelibs\* > Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge > | Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed > |/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: > uppercase=bad) > ||/ Name Version Description > +++-===============-==============-============================================ > un kdelibs0-dev <none> (no description available) > un kdelibs2g <none> (no description available) > un kdelibs2g-dev <none> (no description available) > zappa:/etc/qmail# apt-get install kdelibs2g > Reading Package Lists... Done > Building Dependency Tree... Done > E: Couldn't find package kdelibs2g > > My understanding is that apt-get should tell me that it couldn't find > an installation candidate for the requested package - or that the > package shouldn't be in the package list in the first place. > > -- > Marc Packenius, Qualitätssicherung, roka GmbH, Elbestr. 25, 47800 Krefeld > [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tel. +49-2151-4975-624, Fax +49-2151-4975-89 > From: Thomas Quinot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Debian Developers <[email protected]>, > Debian Users List <[email protected]>, > Deity Creation Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: WARNING: APT removes bash on slink upgrade > > Le 1999-08-12, Jason Gunthorpe écrivait : > > > This is due to a recent bash NMU which now pre-depends on the potato > > libreadlineg2 which conflicts with the slink bash. > > > > Bash -MUST- be re-uploaded with the proper changes made so that it can > > exist with the slink libreadlineg2 ASAP. > > This is not so simple. Bash is unusable with slink's libreadline. > Three bugs of severity important existed in the BTS for this > problem, which the recent NMU attempts to fix: #35130, #39280, #41802. > > On the other hand, the current libreadline is binary-incompatible > with the slink bash, so the conflicts: cannot be removed; the > major version on libreadline should have been bumped when > libreadline was first compiled against glibc 2.1. > > More generally, it is unfortunate that such intricated dependencies > exist between bash and libreadline, with bash being a package of > paramount importance for the operation of the whole system. > Maybe it would be preferrable to link bash statically and get rid > of its dependency on readline. On the other hand, such important > change is far out of the scope of an NMU. > > For now I can reupload bash with the latest change undone. Unfortunately, > this means that an important problem which renders bash unusable will > have to stay open. > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <URL:http://web.fdn.fr/~tquinot/> > From: Decklin Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Bug#42891: apt-get should understand multiple actions on one command > line > > Package: apt > Version: 0.3.11 > Severity: wishlist > > With make, it's possible to specify multiple actions on the command > line, i.e. "make clean all" or "make dep zImage modules". It would be > nice if I could do this with apt-get, i.e. "apt-get update upgrade". > At the very least, apt should complain when I try to do that. :-) > > -- > Debian GNU/Linux - http://www.debian.org/ > The Web is to graphic design as the fax machine is to literature. > From: Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [email protected], > [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: WARNING: APT removes bash on slink upgrade > > [Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...] > > Le 1999-08-12, Jason Gunthorpe _crivait : > > > > > This is due to a recent bash NMU which now pre-depends on the potato > > > libreadlineg2 which conflicts with the slink bash. > > > > > > Bash -MUST- be re-uploaded with the proper changes made so that it can > > > exist with the slink libreadlineg2 ASAP. > > > > This is not so simple. Bash is unusable with slink's libreadline. > > Three bugs of severity important existed in the BTS for this > > problem, which the recent NMU attempts to fix: #35130, #39280, #41802. > > > > On the other hand, the current libreadline is binary-incompatible > > with the slink bash, so the conflicts: cannot be removed; the > > major version on libreadline should have been bumped when > > libreadline was first compiled against glibc 2.1. > > > > More generally, it is unfortunate that such intricated dependencies > > exist between bash and libreadline, with bash being a package of > > paramount importance for the operation of the whole system. > > Maybe it would be preferrable to link bash statically and get rid > > of its dependency on readline. On the other hand, such important > > change is far out of the scope of an NMU. > > > > For now I can reupload bash with the latest change undone. Unfortunately, > > this means that an important problem which renders bash unusable will > > have to stay open. > > >From what I recall from the GNU ftp site, bash-2.04 includes > libreadline-4.0, so the major number *has* been bumped up. Perhaps we > could switch to that which might alleviate this problem? > > Julian > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://www.debian.org/~jdg > From: Guy Hulbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: APT vs DSELECT ? > > Hi Deity. > > [ sorry this is a little long -- please reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] but > cc: me here, thanks ] > > I'd like to see a page on APT vs DSELECT on the debian site as I could > not find this issue discussed in either the FAQ or the FAQOMATIC pages. > > I am willing to write this and submit it to the appropriate person. I've > used texinfo, sgml-tools, ... in the past so, ... you can choose the format. > > This mail is addressed to the maintainer of APT according to the 'mailto': > http://www.debian.org/Packages/stable/admin/apt.html > the search engine does not pickup 'dselect' as a package so I've copied > the corresponding address for 'dpkg'. > > Why ? > ===== > > Background > ---------- > > I have been using Debian since 0.93r6. I've been using linux since SLS 1.03. > [ I've been using free software since 1984 (TeX, emacs a year later) ]. I > switched to redhat a bit less than 12 months ago because it was hard to > get up-to-date Debian CDs but I've since found a good source, which actually > contributes to Debian as well. > > Reasons [ long-winded :( ] > ------- > > Please don't take this personally, but dselect is HORRIBLE. I showed > debian to three co-workers in late 1995 and no-one was impressed (a couple > of them started using debian because of the quality of the rest of the > distribution --- the other uses RedHat because he believes marketing and > usability is important). I use Debian because it is 'free' in RMS' sense (and > because some RedHat packages don't work). > > I'd heard that APT was going to replace DSELECT and assumed that it would > be the default in slink ... but it is not. I've seen people raving about > it and I understand that there is a version available for slink so I will > look at it. > > Because I found dselect so awful, I've never looked much at dpkg. Between > SLS and Debian I used BOGUS. I was able to build the entire BOGUS > distribution > from source code using only: > - 5 or 6 binary packages (it was impossible to build entirely using SLS > because the include files, libraries etc. were too far out of date) > - shell scripts to run the package management tool [1] > To me, this is what "open source" [2], is (or should be) all about. > > I am now interested in looking more closely into dpkg for various reasons. > I've been reading and participating in debian-hurd for about a year but I > have been too busy to get the hurd installed at home so my participation is > somewhat limited. Debian-hurd is committed to dpkg at the moment. > I'm tentatively planning to use 'rpm' at work because I've seen a reference > to someone using it on other unices (;login, Jan 99). Up 'til now I've been > using my own tool to do this but I haven't had time to develop it. However, > if I can easily do with 'dpkg' what I want to do with 'rpm' then I will have > to choose. > > Sincerly, > > ---- > Guy Hulbert, Project Manager [3] Bioinformatics Supercomputing Centre > (416) 813-8876 555 University Avenue > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Hospital for Sick Children > http: www.bioinfo.sickkids.on.ca Toronto, ON, M5G 1X8, CANADA. > > [1] 'pms' from which 'rpm' is indirectly derived. > [2] I prefer the term 'free-software'. > [3] Project Manager = Sys Admin :) > From: Bernd Kreimeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: oel Klecker and others <[email protected]> > Cc: APT Development Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: bogus dependency > > Either apt is optional, or it is not? > > b. > > > > dpkg: regarding libc6_2.1.2-0pre7.deb containing libc6: > libc6 conflicts with apt (<< 0.3.0) > apt (version 0.1.9) is installed. > dpkg: error processing libc6_2.1.2-0pre7.deb (--install): > conflicting packages - not installing libc6 > > Package: apt > Status: install ok installed > Priority: optional > From: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Bernd Kreimeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: oel Klecker and others <[email protected]>, > APT Development Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: bogus dependency > > On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, Bernd Kreimeier wrote: > > > Either apt is optional, or it is not? > > You have to use apt to perform the upgrade and hope nothing goes wrong as > it removes itself. > > Jason > From: Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Bernd Kreimeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: oel Klecker and others <[email protected]>, > APT Development Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: bogus dependency > > On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, Bernd Kreimeier wrote: > > > > > > > > > Either apt is optional, or it is not? > > > Well, it _is_ optional. Why do you think packages should not conflict with > optional packages? The reason libc does this is because if you install the > new libc apt will break. This is undesirable, as you may be currently > using it to do the installation, thus the conflict. What would you have it > do instead? > > Luck, > > b. > > > > > > > > dpkg: regarding libc6_2.1.2-0pre7.deb containing libc6: > > libc6 conflicts with apt (<< 0.3.0) > > apt (version 0.1.9) is installed. > > dpkg: error processing libc6_2.1.2-0pre7.deb (--install): > > conflicting packages - not installing libc6 > > > > Package: apt > > Status: install ok installed > > Priority: optional > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > Dwarf > -- > _-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_- > > aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 > Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308 > > _-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details _-_-_-_-_-_-_- > From: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: Deity Creation Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: gnome-apt > > On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, Havoc Pennington wrote: > > > Yeah the pkgAcquire::Run can return cancelled. I think I made that change > > actually, but I could have sworn I updated gnome-apt to reflect it; I > > don't know how I didn't. Blah. > > You did make that change, I'm shocked your code didn't get updated :> > > Jason > k > From: "Darren/Torin/Who Ever..." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chris McKillop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [email protected] > Subject: Bug#42723: wish for apt > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in an immanent manifestation of deity, > wrote: > >Er, that's 'upgrade' you are thinking of. He wants a feature like dselect > >has - but I think I will have to refuse - that is something that belongs > >in a GUI, not a command line tool like APT. > > But it'd be nice if libapt had a method for doing this so it doesn't get > re-implemented 15 times. > > Darren > - -- > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.daft.com/~torin> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> > Darren Stalder/2608 Second Ave, @282/Seattle, WA > 98121-1212/USA/+1-800-921-4996 > @ Sysadmin, webweaver, postmaster for hire. C/Perl/CGI/Pilot programmer/tutor > @ > @ Make a little hot-tub in your soul. @ > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 2.6.3a > Charset: noconv > Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.1, an Emacs/PGP interface > > iQCVAwUBN7koMo4wrq++1Ls5AQGkRgP/SmfDbrPfWvovJIuPHZwT72ct/eJmAuBA > ftAUQeDbkBPVly8gAYCbWW1eo0PxbKtAYIWIGtvum2YMOaMzlel6f1KiZKJ4BrbB > Mm2N5wbn8yxNTi9yejVPkqJ0l8m8DqjDNWfIgXKOJRkEQIRnbp4GQ7f7Oi3w29kH > duukeJVdYOI= > =UgZK > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > From: Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Bug#43130: apt: weird progressmeter > > Package: apt > Version: 0.3.11 > Severity: normal > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# apt-get install bind-doc > Reading Package Lists... Done > Building Dependency Tree... Done > The following NEW packages will be installed: > bind-doc > 0 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 15 not upgraded. > Need to get 0B/897kB of archives. After unpacking 1079kB will be used. > Err cdrom:Debian GNU_Linux slink (2.1) 1_4 main binary-i386 section 1 > SAM19990306/ debian/dists/frozen/main/binary-i386/ bind-doc 8.1.2-2 > Unable to change to /scdrom/ - chdir (2 No such file or directory) > Get:1 http://samosa.debian.org stable/main bind-doc 8.1.2-2 [897kB] > 15397350% [1 bind-doc 307947/897kB 34%] 5672B/s 8d > 18h19m14s > > That progress-meter is quite... curious :) > > Wichert. > > -- System Information > Debian Release: potato > Kernel Version: Linux lightning 2.2.7 #3 Wed Jul 7 01:43:21 CEST 1999 i586 > unknown > > Versions of the packages apt depends on: > ii libc6 2.1.2-0pre5 GNU C Library: Shared libraries and > timezone > ii libstdc++2.9-gl 2.91.66-2 The GNU stdc++ library (EGCS version) > From: Sander Smeenk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: apt-move script? > > Hi, > > Is it possible to repack all packages on my 2.2 system with dpkg-repack, > and use apt-get on another (Debian 2.1) machine to upgrade that system to > Debian version 2.2? > > I heard there is a script to do this. I tried it without that script, but > apt-get complained about broken MD5Sums, since I used dpkg-repack. > > Doesn't apt-get have a secret option --no-md5sum-check? > I know what I am doing, and if I mess up that Debian 2.1 system, > there is no problem anyway. > > I don't feel like downloading all the packages again, > with my 33k6 connection. > > Please help! > > Ltr! > (-(Fluor)-) > > -- > | Tell a man there are 300 billion stars in the galaxy and he'll beleive you > | Tell a man a bench has wet paint, and he'll have to touch to be sure. > | > | Linux: Reach out and GREP someone! > From: Matt Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Building CVS apt > > I'm trying out YACS to build some potato CD's on a powerpc box (that's all > I really have available) and it requires apt 0.3.11.1. Building from the > latest CVS apt yields the following: > ----- > two00:/usr/local/src/apt# autoconf > configure.in:98: warning: AC_TRY_RUN called without default to allow cross > compiling > two00:/usr/local/src/apt# ./configure > loading cache ./config.cache > ./configure: tl_CHECK_TOOL_PREFIX: command not found > ./configure: tl_PROG_CC: command not found > checking for gcc... gcc > checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) works... yes > checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) is a cross-compiler... no > checking whether we are using GNU C... yes > checking whether gcc accepts -g... yes > checking for POSIXized ISC... no > ./configure: tl_CANONICAL_HOST: command not found > ./configure: tl_CHECK_TOOL_PREFIX: command not found > ./configure: tl_PROG_CXX: command not found > checking how to run the C++ preprocessor... g++ -E > checking for X... libraries /usr/X11R6/lib, headers /usr/X11R6/include > checking for dnet_ntoa in -ldnet... no > checking for dnet_ntoa in -ldnet_stub... no > checking for gethostbyname... yes > checking for connect... yes > checking for remove... yes > checking for shmat... yes > checking for IceConnectionNumber in -lICE... yes > checking for XpmLibraryVersion in -lXpm... yes > checking for SLang_Version in -lslang... no > checking for Gpm_Open in -lgpm... yes > checking system architecture... configure: error: failed: use --host= > two00:/usr/local/src/apt# > > At this point explicitly passing the host platform doesn't help at all, > same problem configuring. I sure would be happy to hear what dumb mistake > I'm making. :) > > Thanks, > -- > Matt Porter > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > This is Linux Country. On a quiet night, you can hear Windows reboot. > From: Thomas Schoepf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Bug#41839: apt: apt-get reinstalls packages > > Hi, > > > this is really a bug. I'm facing it too: > > On my system, qt1g_1.44-5 is installed. It's available through two > different apt lines: > > deb http://kde.tdyc.com potato kde contrib > deb ftp://ftp.leo.org/pub/comp/os/unix/linux/Debian/debian potato main > > The latter only offers qt1g_1.44-4 (instead of -5). > > Everytime I run 'apt-get dist-upgrade' apt wants to download qt1g_1.44-5: > > asterix:~# dpkg -l qt1g | grep ^ii > ii qt1g 1.44-5 Shared Library used by applications linked > w > asterix:~# apt-cache showpkg qt1g | grep ^Versions: > Versions: > 1.44-5(/var/state/apt/lists/kde.tdyc.com_dists_potato_kde_binary-i386_Packages),1.44-5(/var/lib/dpkg/status),1.44-4(/var/state/apt/lists/ftp.leo.org_pub_comp_os_unix_linux_Debian_debian_dists_potato_non-free_binary-i386_Packages), > asterix:~# apt-get dist-upgrade > Reading Package Lists... Done > Building Dependency Tree... Done > Calculating Upgrade... Done > 1 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. > Need to get 721kB of archives. After unpacking 1024B will be used. > Do you want to continue? [Y/n] > Err http://kde.tdyc.com potato/kde qt1g 1.44-5 > Could not resolve 'wwwcache.informatik.tu-muenchen.de' > Failed to fetch > http://kde.tdyc.com/dists/potato/kde/binary-i386/libs/qt1g_1.44-5_i386.deb > Could not resolve 'wwwcache.informatik.tu-muenchen.de' > E: Unable to fetch some archives, maybe try with --fix-missing? > asterix:~# > > (Ignore those "Err" messages, my system was offline.) > > My /etc/apt/sources.list: > > # Use for a local mirror - remove the ftp1 http lines for the bits > # your mirror contains. > # deb file:/your/mirror/here/debian stable main contrib non-free > # See sources.list(5) for more information, especial > # Remember that you can only use http, ftp or file URIs > #deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free > deb file:/home/schoepf/debian/ local/ > #deb http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian potato main contrib non-free > deb ftp://ftp.leo.org/pub/comp/os/unix/linux/Debian/debian potato main > contrib non-free > # Non-US > deb http://nonus.debian.org/debian-non-US/ potato/non-US main contrib non-free > # Debian/KDE > deb http://kde.tdyc.com potato kde contrib > > > Thomas > -- > From: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Thomas Schoepf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Bug#41839: apt: apt-get reinstalls packages > > On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Thomas Schoepf wrote: > > > this is really a bug. I'm facing it too: > > > > On my system, qt1g_1.44-5 is installed. It's available through two > > different apt lines: > > > > deb http://kde.tdyc.com potato kde contrib > > deb ftp://ftp.leo.org/pub/comp/os/unix/linux/Debian/debian potato main > > > > The latter only offers qt1g_1.44-4 (instead of -5). > > Please try out the 0.3.11.1 version of APT found at > http://www.debian.org/~jgg/ > > Jason > From: Thomas Schoepf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Bug#41839: apt: apt-get reinstalls packages > > On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > Please try out the 0.3.11.1 version of APT found at > > http://www.debian.org/~jgg/ > > Sorry, doesn't fix it. apt still tries to download qt1g_1.44-5. > > > Thomas > -- > From: Tatsuya Maruyama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Bug#43251: apt: desc.apt has typo > > Package: apt > Version: 0.3.11 > > /usr/lib/dpkg/methods/apt/desc.apt has a typo: > > > sources. See the man pages apt-get(8) and source.list(5) > > sources.list(5) > ^ > --- > Tatsuya Maruyama ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Bug#43275: apt: apt does not offer to add security updates to > sources.list > > Package: apt > Version: 0.3.11 > Severity: wishlist > > apt should offer a configuration that makes it easy to install security > updates regularly. According to http://www.debian.org/security/ , the > official sources.list line is > > deb http://security.debian.org/ stable updates > > However, I'm sure that many users never add this, and don't otherwise keep > up on Debian security bulletins. This represents a great number of > potentially insecure machines that could be eliminated with this > sources.list line and, optionally, a cron task. This configuration > shouldn't be forced on everyone, but should be an option (at install time) > for those who would otherwise ignore security updates completely. > > Although administrators of important systems may prefer not to be upgraded > automatically, Debian can with this simple measure protect casual users from > common exploits. > > Andrew > > -- System Information > Debian Release: potato > Kernel Version: Linux nolfolan 2.2.10 #2 Mon Jun 21 18:24:15 EDT 1999 i686 > unknown > > Versions of the packages apt depends on: > ii libc6 2.1.2-0pre7 GNU C Library: Shared libraries and > timezone > ii libstdc++2.9-gl 2.91.66-2 The GNU stdc++ library (EGCS version) > From: Levi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Data socket timeouts > > I have a suggestion for improving apt's FTP method. Why not, instead of > giving up on a file when there's a data socket timeout, simply resume the > file where it left off (or whatever it is that normal ftp does). I'd do it > myself, but my C++ skills are rather lacking *sigh*. Let me know what you > think. > > -Levi > From: Amy Fong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Bug#43286: apt installing virtual pkg msg bug? > > Package: apt > Version: 0.3.11 > Severity: normal > > # apt-get install gnome-desktop > Reading Package Lists... Done > Building Dependency Tree... Done > Package gnome-desktop has no available version, but exists in the > database. > This typically means that the package was mentioned in a dependency and > never uploaded, or that it is an obsolete package. > However the following packages replace it: > gnome-control-center gnome-control-center gnome-control-center > > The same package that provides the virtual package is repeated 2 timmes. > > potato, kernel 2.2.10, libc6 2.1.2-0pre7 > From: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Levi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: Deity Creation Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Data socket timeouts > > On Sat, 21 Aug 1999, Levi wrote: > > > I have a suggestion for improving apt's FTP method. Why not, instead of > > giving up on a file when there's a data socket timeout, simply resume the > > file where it left off (or whatever it is that normal ftp does). I'd do it > > myself, but my C++ skills are rather lacking *sigh*. Let me know what you > > think. > > Add acquire::retries "10"; to the config file and it will, see the man > page for apt.conf. > > Jason > From: Georg Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Georg Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], APT Development Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Bug#42779: apt: apt-cdrom doesn't scan CD right > > On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 01:04:55 -0600 (MDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Gunthorpe) > wrote: > > >Try the apt 0.3.11.1 from http://www.debian.org/~jgg/ - it should > >hopefully work. > > I fetched the 0.3.11.1 from your site. This is the result: > > goggle# apt-cdrom -m -d /home/ftp/cdrom1 add > Using CD-ROM mount point /home/ftp/cdrom1/ > Identifying.. [6b6f3b8d3d26e1f4c32eb23d1ba3f9d2-2] > Scanning Disc for index files.. Found 1 package indexes and 0 source > indexes. > Please provide a name for this Disc, such as 'Debian 2.1r1 Disk 1': > Debian 2.1r1 Disk 1 > This Disc is called 'Debian 2.1r1 Disk 1' > E: Failed to stat /home/ftp/cdrom1/Packages - stat (2 No such file or > directory) > E: Stat failed for /home/ftp/cdrom1/Packages - stat (2 No such file or > directory) > > > Not fully there, but a bit closer ... > > bye, Georg > > -- > http://www.westfalen.de/hugo/ > From: Lazarus Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Bug#43356: apt: security > > Package: apt > Version: 0.3.11 > Severity: wishlist > > === > <usual> santa: to get those security updates does it do it by itself when i > upgrade or do i have to do a apt-get install blah? > <lazarus> apt, security? > <apt> Debian provides security updates. To obtain updated packages, > insert 'deb http://security.debian.org stable updates' into > /etc/apt/sources.list > === > > Shouldn't that line ship as part of the stock sources.list? > > If there is some reason not to include it, please at least consider > including it in a commented-out form. > > -- System Information > Debian Release: potato > Kernel Version: Linux phoenix 2.2.11 #1 Sun Aug 15 10:47:40 UTC 1999 i586 > unknown > > Versions of the packages apt depends on: > ii libc6 2.1.2-0pre10 GNU C Library: Shared libraries and > timezone > ii libstdc++2.9-gl 2.91.66-2 The GNU stdc++ library (EGCS version) > From: Enterprise Mail Account <[email protected]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Bug#43368: gnome-apt: gnome-apt does not mark any packages for > upgrading > > Package: gnome-apt > Version: 0.3.4 > Severity: normal > > After an update, there is a beep. The update appears to have been > assimilated, since apt-get sees the updated package files, but gnome-apt > refuses to mark anything for upgrade (or smart upgrade). > > This error has been happening for a couple of weeks. > > These are the final messages at the end of updating: > Fail http://www.mirror.ac.uk potato/contrib Release > Hit http://www.mirror.ac.uk potato/non-free Sources > Fail http://www.mirror.ac.uk potato/non-free Release > Stop > Gnome Apt Frontend-DEBUG: setting up vadjustment > > -- System Information > Debian Release: potato > Kernel Version: Linux linda 2.2.10 #2 SMP Fri Aug 6 00:06:44 BST 1999 i686 > unknown > > Versions of the packages gnome-apt depends on: > ii apt 0.3.11 Advanced front-end for dpkg > ii gdk-imlib1 1.9.5-1 Gdk-Imlib is an imaging library for use > with > ii libart2 1.0.10-3 The Gnome canvas widget > ii libaudiofile0 0.1.7-2 The Audiofile Library > ii libc6 2.1.2-0pre7 GNU C Library: Shared libraries and > timezone > ii libesd0 0.2.10-0.19990 Enlightened Sound Daemon - Shared libraries > ii libglib1.2 1.2.3-2 The GLib library of C routines > ii libgnome32 1.0.10-3 The Gnome libraries > ii libgnomesupport 1.0.10-3 The Gnome libraries (Support libraries) > ii libgnomeui32 1.0.10-3 The Gnome libraries (User Interface) > ii libgtk1.2 1.2.3-2 The GIMP Toolkit set of widgets for X > ii libstdc++2.9-gl 2.91.66-2 The GNU stdc++ library (EGCS version) > ii libzvt2 1.0.10-3 The Gnome zvt (zterm) widget > ii xlib6g 3.3.3.1-10 shared libraries required by X clients > ii zlib1g 1.1.3-4 compression library - runtime > ii apt 0.3.11 Advanced front-end for dpkg > ^^^ (Provides virtual package libapt-pkg2.5) > > /etc/apt/sources.list: > deb http://www.mirror.ac.uk/sites/ftp.debian.org/debian slink main contrib > non-free > deb http://www.mirror.ac.uk/sites/ftp.debian.org/debian potato main contrib > non-free > deb ftp://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US dists/stable/non-US/binary-$(ARCH)/ > deb ftp://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US > dists/unstable/non-US/main/binary-$(ARCH)/ > deb ftp://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US > dists/unstable/non-US/contrib/binary-$(ARCH)/ > deb ftp://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US > dists/unstable/non-US/non-free/binary-$(ARCH)/ > deb-src http://www.mirror.ac.uk/sites/ftp.debian.org/debian slink main > contrib non-free > deb-src http://www.mirror.ac.uk/sites/ftp.debian.org/debian potato main > contrib non-free > deb-src ftp://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US dists/stable/non-US/source/ > deb-src ftp://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US > dists/unstable/non-US/main/source/ > deb-src ftp://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US > dists/unstable/non-US/contrib/source/ > deb-src ftp://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US > dists/unstable/non-US/non-free/source/ > From: Matthew Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: apt-get and rproxy > > An apt-get update bombs with 'Connection failed' when the http_proxy > env. var. points at rproxy. The http data is flowing between the > rproxies correctly, it appears that apt-get is simply unable to deal > with it. > > rproxy is available from anon CVS at cvs.samba.org. > > If there's any debugging things I can give to help I'm happy to oblige. > > -- > Matt > From: Michele Dalla Silvestra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: APT Development Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Syntax error in description file > > In the file /usr/lib/dpkg/methods/apt/desc.apt the string > "source.list(5)" must be rewritten as "sources.list(5)". > > > Michele > From: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Matthew Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: apt-get and rproxy > > On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Matthew Hawkins wrote: > > > An apt-get update bombs with 'Connection failed' when the http_proxy > > env. var. points at rproxy. The http data is flowing between the > > rproxies correctly, it appears that apt-get is simply unable to deal > > with it. > > Almost every proxy out there seems to have problems dealing with APT's > very agressive use of HTTP/1.1 features such as keepalive. AFAIK APT does > not violate the RFC, is it just the only agressive user of HTTP/1.1 out > there. > > wwoffle and apache-proxy have problems, squid and many others do not, I > suggest you strace the http method process and see what system call is > causing it to print that error.. > > Jason > From: Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Enterprise Mail Account <[email protected]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cc: Apt Packaging Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Bug#43368: gnome-apt: gnome-apt does not mark any packages for > upgrading > > On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Enterprise Mail Account wrote: > > Package: gnome-apt > > Version: 0.3.4 > > Severity: normal > > > > After an update, there is a beep. The update appears to have been > > assimilated, since apt-get sees the updated package files, but gnome-apt > > refuses to mark anything for upgrade (or smart upgrade). > > > > This error has been happening for a couple of weeks. > > > > Hmm, can you clarify this for me - you mean you choose the "update" menu > item, then "mark upgrades," and no upgrades are marked? > > Or do you mean you do "Complete Run" and dpkg isn't run (this bug is fixed > in CVS). > > It sounds like you're saying you choose "update" from the menu and no > upgrades are marked, which is the correct behavior; you have to then > choose "mark upgrades" to mark the upgrades. > > Thanks, > Havoc > From: David Luyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Bug#43476: apt-get doesn't honour no_proxy env setting > > Package: apt > Version: 0.3.11 > > apt-get when using the http and ftp methods honours the ftp_proxy and > http_proxy environment variables but doesn't check no_proxy. this can > cause downloading of new packages to fail. > > David. > From: "Oliver Elphick" <[email protected]> > To: Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: Enterprise Mail Account <[email protected]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], > Apt Packaging Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Bug#43368: gnome-apt: gnome-apt does not mark any packages for > upgrading > > Havoc Pennington wrote: > > > >On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Enterprise Mail Account wrote: > >> Package: gnome-apt > >> Version: 0.3.4 > >> Severity: normal > >> > >> After an update, there is a beep. The update appears to have been > >> assimilated, since apt-get sees the updated package files, but gnome-apt > >> refuses to mark anything for upgrade (or smart upgrade). > ... > > > >Hmm, can you clarify this for me - you mean you choose the "update" menu > >item, then "mark upgrades," and no upgrades are marked? > > > >Or do you mean you do "Complete Run" and dpkg isn't run (this bug is fixed > >in CVS). > > > >It sounds like you're saying you choose "update" from the menu and no > >upgrades are marked, which is the correct behavior; you have to then > >choose "mark upgrades" to mark the upgrades. > > Run update - the package lists are updated > Beep (I don't remember this happening in the past) > Mark upgrades or mark smart upgrades - gnome-apt says there is nothing to > update... > ...so there's no point in trying a complete run. > > However apt-get does find things to update with dist-upgrade. > -- > Vote against SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/ > ======================================== > Oliver Elphick [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver > PGP key from public servers; key ID 32B8FAA1 > ======================================== > "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the > night. The heavens shall pass away with a great noise, > and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, and the > earth and the works that are therein shall be burned > up." II Peter 3:10 > From: Vandoorselaere Yoann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Help request : apt & firewall > > Hi, > > I'm actually searching how to allow apt to pass throught a firewall, > i'm searching how apt manage it's connection, but apparently, it isn't > like ftp. > > Any feedback will be appreciated. > > See you > > > -- > -- Yoann > It is well known that M$ products don't call free() after a malloc(). > The Unix community wish them good luck for their future developments. > From: Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Oliver Elphick <[email protected]> > cc: Apt Packaging Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Bug#43368: gnome-apt: gnome-apt does not mark any packages for > upgrading > > On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, Oliver Elphick wrote: > > > > Run update - the package lists are updated > > Beep (I don't remember this happening in the past) > > It's always beeped at the end of a download; I should probably take that > out, it doesn't work out well. The idea was that it would let you know the > download was complete... > > > Mark upgrades or mark smart upgrades - gnome-apt says there is nothing to > > update... > > ...so there's no point in trying a complete run. > > > > I'll investigate this. Strange, strange. (I'm using the same function > apt-get uses...) > > Havoc > > ************************************************* > -- Universita' di Padova http://www.lettere.unipd.it/~joke Facolta' di Filosofia [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pluto - linux user group [EMAIL PROTECTED] Innominate AG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
