unsubscribe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Subject: > > deity-digest Digest Volume 101 : Issue 10 > > Today's Topics: > RE: apt-get update failing [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: Bug#32920: apt: wish: keep /var/ [ Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] > Re: Bug#32918: apt: misleading sourc [ Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] > Re: ftp method missing from apt_0.3 [ Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] > Re: No dependancy for apt-pkg in gno [ Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] > Bug#32918: marked as done (apt: misl [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug T ] > Bug#32920: marked as done (apt: wish [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug T ] > libapt-pkg shlib detection error [ Mitch Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > RE: apt-get update failing [ Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] > bug report [ Stephen Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Bug#32972: Apt gives scaring warning [ Alexander Shumakovitch <[EMAIL > PROTECTED] ] > Re: bug report [ Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] > Re: Bug#32972: Apt gives scaring war [ Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] > Bug#32972: marked as done (Apt gives [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug T ] > Bug#33006: "Offline-queue" access me [ Florian Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Bug#32883: apt --no-act could be mor [ James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: Bug#32883: apt --no-act could be [ Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] > Re: Bug#33006: "Offline-queue" acces [ Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] > RE: apt-get update failing [ Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > RE: apt-get update failing [ Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] > Bug#33032: apt: apt does not count p [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: Bug#33032: apt: apt does not cou [ Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] > Bug#33049: Apt could handle half-way [ Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: Bug#33049: Apt could handle half [ Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ] > Bug#33049: marked as done (Apt could [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug T ] > Re: Bug#33049: Apt could handle half [ Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > gnome-apt [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: gnome-apt [ Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> ] > Re: gnome-apt [ Mitch Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: gnome-apt [ Lalo Martins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: gnome-apt [ Mitch Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Processed: [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug T ] > bug? [ Jozsa Kristof <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Bug#33291: When a package is marked [ Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > "Offline" apt [ Florian Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: RE: apt-get update failing > Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 09:25:42 -0500 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Yup. I've removed the Packages.gz files and had mirror reget them several > times. I also tried right from the ftp site ... > > # cat /etc/apt/sources.list > > deb http://ftp1.us.debian.org/debian frozen main contrib non-free > deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US unstable/binary-i386/ > > # deb file:/amnt/mirrors/debian frozen main contrib non-free > # deb file:/amnt/mirrors/debian/debian-non-US unstable non-US > # deb file:/amnt/mirrors/debian project/experimental/ > fsmail:~# > fsmail:~# > fsmail:~# apt-get update > Get http://ftp1.us.debian.org frozen/contrib Packages > Get http://non-us.debian.org unstable/binary-i386/ Packages > Get http://ftp1.us.debian.org frozen/main Packages > Get http://ftp1.us.debian.org frozen/non-free Packages > Fetched 2040k in 3s (596k/s) > Updating package file cache... > E: Line 3 in package file > /var/state/apt/lists/ftp1.us.debian.org_debian_dists_frozen_main_binary-i386 > _Packages is too long.(2) > fsmail:~# > > -- > Dean Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 94 TT :) [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Gunthorpe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 1999 7:45 PM > To: Carpenter, Dean > Cc: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: apt-get update failing > > On Thu, 4 Feb 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Thanks to Nils and Jason for the *really* fast replies ... > > > > Just upgraded to apt_0.1.10 from potato - same problem. Looks like there > > are a few others out there seeing the same thing. > > master{root}~#apt-get update > Get file:/debian/debian/ dists/proposed-updates/ Packages > Get file:/debian/debian/ slink/contrib Packages > Get file:/debian/debian/ slink/main Packages > Get http://nonus.debian.org unstable/non-US Packages > Get file:/debian/debian/ slink/non-free Packages > Get file:/debian/debian/ stable/contrib Packages > > Get file:/debian/debian/ stable/main Packages > > Get file:/debian/debian/ stable/non-free Packages > > Fetched 41.3k in 0s (50.1k/s) > > Updating package file cache...done > Updating package status cache...done > Checking system integrity...ok > master{root}~#apt-get | head --lines 1 > apt 0.1.5 for i386 compiled on Jul 23 1998 22:05:22 > > Hmm.. Are you sure you package files are not corrupted? > > Jason > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Re: Bug#32920: apt: wish: keep /var/state/apt/lists/* files > compressed > Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 13:53:13 -0700 (MST) > From: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: APT Development Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Fri, 5 Feb 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > those files are big (some megabytes) > > and when (rarely) they are used to recontruct the caches and the > > file "available" for dpkg, they could be gunzipped on the fly, > > without much CPU cost! > > Sorry but no. The APT program requires random access to the package lists > durning several stages of it's operation. The Binary cache serves only as > an overview to the exact positions of the data it needs. > > Jason > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Re: Bug#32918: apt: misleading sources.list man page, on "preferred > sources" > Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 13:55:49 -0700 (MST) > From: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: A Mennucc1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: APT Development Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, A Mennucc1 wrote: > > > the man page says: > > > > It is important to list sources in order of preference, > > with the most preferred source listed first. Typically > > this will result in sorting by speed from fastest to slow > > est (CD-ROM followed by hosts on a local network, followed > > by distant Internet hosts, for example). > > > > Now, I would like to do what [EMAIL PROTECTED] says > > (at least, this is what I understand from 22551): > > Yes this is a feature that has been request but it will not be implemented > through sources.list ordering. The ordering of the source list is to allow > exactly the functionality you quoted from the man page, this to to allow a > local mirror to be preferenced over an remote mirror. With APTv3's source > fail-over this becomes even more important. > > I will close this bug as 22551 is already basically identical. > > Jason > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Re: ftp method missing from apt_0.3 > Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 13:56:44 -0700 (MST) > From: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: Deity Creation Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Fri, 5 Feb 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > The version of apt in > > > > http://www.debian.org/~mblevin/gnome-apt/apt_0.3.0_i386.deb > > > > doesn't have the ftp method! > > Yes, it hasn't been written, try using HTTP there are many http enabled > mirrors you can use. See http://www.debian.org/~jgg/Mirrors > > Jason > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Re: No dependancy for apt-pkg in gnome-apt > Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 13:57:22 -0700 (MST) > From: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Fri, 5 Feb 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Depends: apt (>= 0.3.0), gdk-imlib1, libart2 (>= 0.99.4-1), libc6, > > libesd0, libglib1.1.13 (>= 1.1.13 > > -1), libgnome31 (>= 0.99.4-1), libgtk1.1.13 (>= 1.1.13-1), libstdc++2.9, > > libzvt2 (>= 0.99.4-1), xlib > > 6g (>= 3.3-5), zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.3) > > > > Shouldn't apt-pkg be in there? > > No, apt-pkg is included in apt. > > Jason > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Bug#32918: marked as done (apt: misleading sources.list man page, on > "preferred sources") > Date: Fri, 5 Feb 99 15:03 CST > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System) > To: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: APT Development Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Your message dated Fri, 5 Feb 1999 13:55:49 -0700 (MST) > with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > and subject line Bug#32918: apt: misleading sources.list man page, on > "preferred sources" > 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; 5 Feb 1999 09:42:39 +0000 > Received: (qmail 6741 invoked from network); 5 Feb 1999 09:42:36 -0000 > Received: from tonelli.sns.it ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > by master.debian.org with SMTP; 5 Feb 1999 09:42:36 -0000 > Received: by Tonelli.sns.it > id m108hmO-000019C > (Debian Smail-3.2.0.101 1997-Dec-17 #2); Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:42:28 > +0100 (CET) > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:42:28 +0100 (CET) > From: A Mennucc1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: apt: misleading sources.list man page, on "preferred sources" > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Bcc: > X-Mailer: bug 3.1.5 > > Package: apt > Version: 0.1.10 > > hi > > the man page says: > > It is important to list sources in order of preference, > with the most preferred source listed first. Typically > this will result in sorting by speed from fastest to slow > est (CD-ROM followed by hosts on a local network, followed > by distant Internet hosts, for example). > > Now, I would like to do what [EMAIL PROTECTED] says > (at least, this is what I understand from 22551): > > > It would be very nice if there was some way that I can arrange my > > /etc/apt/sources.list so that it picks up a file from a distribution > > if and only if that file does not exist in the other distributions. > > More precisely, I would like that if > there is a stable version of a package > and there is a unstable (or, frozen) version of a package, > then the stable version of the package be preferred; > so when I read "the most preferred source listed first" > I built the sources.list that you see below; > instead, apt-get now wants to upgrade all and every package that > I have! > > thanks > > a.m. > > -- System Information > Debian Release: 2.0 > Kernel Version: Linux Tonelli 2.0.34 #2 Thu Jul 9 10:57:48 EST 1998 i586 > unknown > > Versions of the packages apt depends on: > ii libc6 2.0.7.19981211 GNU Libc: shared libraries > ii libstdc++2.9 2.91.60-4 The GNU stdc++ library (egcs version) > > --- Begin /etc/apt/sources.list (modified conffile) > deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free > deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US stable non-US > deb http://sunsite.org.uk/packages/debian dists/proposed-updates/ > deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian frozen main contrib non-free > > --- End /etc/apt/sources.list > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Bug#32920: marked as done (apt: wish: keep /var/state/apt/lists/* > files compressed) > Date: Fri, 5 Feb 99 15:03 CST > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System) > To: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: APT Development Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Your message dated Fri, 5 Feb 1999 13:53:13 -0700 (MST) > with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > and subject line Bug#32920: apt: wish: keep /var/state/apt/lists/* files > compressed > 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; 5 Feb 1999 09:55:15 +0000 > Received: (qmail 8391 invoked from network); 5 Feb 1999 09:55:12 -0000 > Received: from tonelli.sns.it ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > by master.debian.org with SMTP; 5 Feb 1999 09:55:12 -0000 > Received: by Tonelli.sns.it > id m108hyd-000019C > (Debian Smail-3.2.0.101 1997-Dec-17 #2); Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:55:07 > +0100 (CET) > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:55:07 +0100 (CET) > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: apt: wish: keep /var/state/apt/lists/* files compressed > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Bcc: > X-Mailer: bug 3.1.5 > > Package: apt > Version: 0.1.10 > > hi > > those files are big (some megabytes) > and when (rarely) they are used to recontruct the caches and the > file "available" for dpkg, they could be gunzipped on the fly, > without much CPU cost! > > thanks > > a. > > -- System Information > Debian Release: 2.0 > Kernel Version: Linux Tonelli 2.0.34 #2 Thu Jul 9 10:57:48 EST 1998 i586 > unknown > > Versions of the packages apt depends on: > ii libc6 2.0.7.19981211 GNU Libc: shared libraries > ii libstdc++2.9 2.91.60-4 The GNU stdc++ library (egcs version) > > --- Begin /etc/apt/sources.list (modified conffile) > deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free > deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US stable non-US > deb http://sunsite.org.uk/packages/debian dists/proposed-updates/ > deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian frozen main contrib non-free > > --- End /etc/apt/sources.list > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: libapt-pkg shlib detection error > Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 18:19:18 -0500 > From: Mitch Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I have had to manually add the dependency to apt 0.3.0 to > gnome apt because of the following: > > [bash]$ dpkg-shlibdeps `which gnome-apt` > dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: unable to find dependency information for shared > library libapt-pkg (soname 2.0, path /usr/lib/libapt-pkg.so.2.0, dependency > field Depends) > > Methinks it has something to do with this: > > [bash]$ cat /var/lib/dpkg/info/apt.shlibs > libapt-pkg 2 apt > > [bash]$ ldd `which gnome-apt` |grep libapt-pkg > libapt-pkg.so.2.0 => /usr/lib/libapt-pkg.so.2.0 (0x4037c000) > > The way I understand dpkg-shlibdeps, it is looking for a line like: > > libapt-pkg 2.0 <packagename> > > in /var/lib/dpkg/info/*.shlibs, and is not finding it. > Is this an apt bug? > > -Mitch > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: RE: apt-get update failing > Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 01:01:30 -0700 (MST) > From: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Fri, 5 Feb 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Yup. I've removed the Packages.gz files and had mirror reget them several > > times. I also tried right from the ftp site ... > > Are you -sure- you have the right version? > > va{root}/usr/debian/home/jgg#cat /etc/apt/sources.list > deb http://ftp1.us.debian.org/debian frozen main contrib non-free > deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US unstable/binary-i386/ > va{root}/usr/debian/home/jgg#apt-get update > Get http://ftp1.us.debian.org frozen/contrib Packages > Get http://non-us.debian.org unstable/binary-i386/ Packages > Get http://ftp1.us.debian.org frozen/main Packages > Get http://ftp1.us.debian.org frozen/non-free Packages > Fetched 594k in 2s (257k/s) > Updating package file cache...done > Updating package status cache...done > Checking system integrity...ok > va{root}/usr/debian/home/jgg#apt-get | head --lines=1 > apt 0.1.9 for i386 compiled on Nov 5 1998 17:50:04 > > va{root}/usr/debian/home/jgg#md5sum /var/state/apt/lists/* > 67acada608ee6c428cd757a2056c4626 > /var/state/apt/lists/ftp1.us.debian.org_debian_dists_frozen_contrib_binary-i386_Packages > 8a924add52d804ad2efa855e5a090c28 > /var/state/apt/lists/ftp1.us.debian.org_debian_dists_frozen_main_binary-i386_Packages > c72a3c8be6caf7b303c1452cdb41c8ae > /var/state/apt/lists/ftp1.us.debian.org_debian_dists_frozen_non-free_binary-i386_Packages > ce7259fbe64a3d14c57e78c4c5987c0b > /var/state/apt/lists/non-us.debian.org_debian-non-US_unstable_binary-i386_Packages > > Jason > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: bug report > Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 20:16:23 +1100 (EST) > From: Stephen Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hi there.. I ran into this little buglet: > > ---8<------------------------------------------------------8<--- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/var/lib/dpkg/info# apt-get install wmakerconf > Reading Package Lists... Done > Building Dependency Tree... Done > The following extra packages will be installed: > wmakerconf-data > The following NEW packages will be installed: > wmakerconf wmakerconf-data > 0 packages upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove and 4 not upgraded. > 35054,200900 > How odd.. The sizes didn't match, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Need to get 35.1k of archives. After unpacking 570k will be used. > E: The method driver /usr/lib/apt/methods/ftp could not be found. > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/var/lib/dpkg/info# > ---8<------------------------------------------------------8<--- > > Is there any particular reason why the ftp method doesn't exist? I kinda > miss it :/ > > Thanks > > //-------=[ Chalky (Stephen Davies) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]=-------\\ > //------=[ Powered by Linux -- "Escape the Gates of Hell" ]=------\\ > //--=[ PlethoraMUD Implementor - telnet: pleth.eisa.net.au:4000 ]=--\\ > //--=[ Programmer(C/C++/Java) and 2nd Year CSE/CS Student at RMIT ]=--\\ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Bug#32972: Apt gives scaring warning while removing required but > obsolete packages > Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 12:17:54 +0100 > From: Alexander Shumakovitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Package: apt > Version: 0.1.9 > > During my upgrade from hamm to slink using dselect-apt combination, I've got > the following message: > WARNING: The following essential packages will be removed > This should NOT be done unless you know exactly what you are doing! > slang0.99.38 > > Although I was completely sure that slang0.99.38 is not in the distribution > anymore, that warning forced me to press Ctrl-C, go to Select and to > double-check that it's indeed obsolete. I believe some people could even > abandon the installation after this. I guess, apt shouldn't warn about any > packages being removed if they are "obsolete" (that said not in the > distribution). > > Thanks! > > --- Shurik. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Re: bug report > Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 13:25:00 -0700 (MST) > From: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Stephen Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: Deity Creation Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Sat, 6 Feb 1999, Stephen Davies wrote: > > > Hi there.. I ran into this little buglet: > > > > ---8<------------------------------------------------------8<--- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/var/lib/dpkg/info# apt-get install wmakerconf > > Reading Package Lists... Done > > Building Dependency Tree... Done > > The following extra packages will be installed: > > wmakerconf-data > > The following NEW packages will be installed: > > wmakerconf wmakerconf-data > > 0 packages upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove and 4 not upgraded. > > 35054,200900 > > How odd.. The sizes didn't match, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > This I am pretty sure is caused by the missing FTP method, I should look > into it. > > > Is there any particular reason why the ftp method doesn't exist? I kinda > > miss it :/ > > Yes, the new version has not been completed yet. > > Jason > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Re: Bug#32972: Apt gives scaring warning while removing required but > obsolete packages > Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 13:28:49 -0700 (MST) > From: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Alexander Shumakovitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: APT Development Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Sat, 6 Feb 1999, Alexander Shumakovitch wrote: > > > During my upgrade from hamm to slink using dselect-apt combination, I've got > > the following message: > > WARNING: The following essential packages will be removed > > This should NOT be done unless you know exactly what you are doing! > > slang0.99.38 > > > > Although I was completely sure that slang0.99.38 is not in the distribution > > anymore, that warning forced me to press Ctrl-C, go to Select and to > > double-check that it's indeed obsolete. I believe some people could even > > abandon the installation after this. I guess, apt shouldn't warn about any > > packages being removed if they are "obsolete" (that said not in the > > distribution). > > Sorry but no. APT is giving this warning not because slang itself is > essential but because something essential depends on it. The new APTv3 has > a more clearer indication of this. > > What can happen is you can get the installation into a state where it is > forced to disable an essential package while it fiddles witht he slang* > packages and this can badly damage your installation! > > Also, there is no real way to determine truely obsolete packages so this > warning will remain forever and the release notes will have to cover which > things can be removed safely -AFTER- everything has been upgraded. > > Never, EVER -EVER- let that warning go by while it is doing other things, > that is seriously dangerous! > > Jason > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Bug#32972: marked as done (Apt gives scaring warning while removing > required but obsolete packages) > Date: Sat, 6 Feb 99 14:33 CST > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System) > To: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: APT Development Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Your message dated Sat, 6 Feb 1999 13:28:49 -0700 (MST) > with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > and subject line Bug#32972: Apt gives scaring warning while removing required > but obsolete packages > 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; 6 Feb 1999 11:17:50 +0000 > Received: (qmail 18704 invoked from network); 6 Feb 1999 11:17:50 -0000 > Received: from daisy.math.unibas.ch (131.152.41.1) > by master.debian.org with SMTP; 6 Feb 1999 11:17:50 -0000 > Received: by daisy.math.unibas.ch (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) > id MAA12674; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 12:17:55 +0100 > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 12:17:54 +0100 > From: Alexander Shumakovitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Apt gives scaring warning while removing required but obsolete > packages > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1 > > Package: apt > Version: 0.1.9 > > During my upgrade from hamm to slink using dselect-apt combination, I've got > the following message: > WARNING: The following essential packages will be removed > This should NOT be done unless you know exactly what you are doing! > slang0.99.38 > > Although I was completely sure that slang0.99.38 is not in the distribution > anymore, that warning forced me to press Ctrl-C, go to Select and to > double-check that it's indeed obsolete. I believe some people could even > abandon the installation after this. I guess, apt shouldn't warn about any > packages being removed if they are "obsolete" (that said not in the > distribution). > > Thanks! > > --- Shurik. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Bug#33006: "Offline-queue" access method for apt > Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 00:25:43 +0100 > From: Florian Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Package: apt > Version: 0.3.0 > Severity: wishlist > > It would be nice if apt had a special method for offline use. > It should spool all requests for new packages into a file > that could be taken to an other machine with a good internet > connection by removable media. > On this machine there should be a script or a program (perhaps > even for Win32) that downloads all requested packages and > stores them back on the removable media. > Now, back on the first PC, all packages can be installed. > > A less preferred possibility would be an apt-get command line > used in conjuction with -s for printing the complete URLs for > packages to download that can be piped into a file and > processed with wget myself. > > This methods would be a great help for users with a slow and > expensive net internet connection or no net connection at all. > > Thanks, > > Florian Laws > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Bug#32883: apt --no-act could be more helpful (print download size) > Date: 07 Feb 1999 01:00:06 +0000 > From: James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > severity 32883 fixed > > done > > Fixed? Eh? Colour me a biased anti-apt fan, but since when does > fixing stuff in CVS, which is not available as a Debian package count > as fixed? :( > > -- > James > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Re: Bug#32883: apt --no-act could be more helpful (print download > size) > Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 21:56:45 -0700 (MST) > From: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: Deity Creation Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On 7 Feb 1999, James Troup wrote: > > > Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > severity 32883 fixed > > > done > > > > Fixed? Eh? Colour me a biased anti-apt fan, but since when does > > fixing stuff in CVS, which is not available as a Debian package count > > as fixed? :( > > The fixed priority was originaly for things that have been fixed but have > not been officialy (usually by the original packager) fixed. It makes some > degree of sense to mark things that have been fixed as fixed and leave > them in the bug system untill they are packaged. > > I get so many dupliaced bug reports it is painfull to manage them all. At > least this way someone who really cares can look at the bug list and find > it is corrected and ask how to get the fixes (from CVS) and hopefully not > report it again. > > Jason > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Re: Bug#33006: "Offline-queue" access method for apt > Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 23:11:49 -0700 (MST) > From: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Florian Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: APT Development Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Florian Laws wrote: > > > It would be nice if apt had a special method for offline use. > > It should spool all requests for new packages into a file > > that could be taken to an other machine with a good internet > > connection by removable media. > > There is presently two ways to do exactly this with APTv3. > > The first is to copy the status file to another machine and use the > configuration directives to make the other APT use it. You'd also use the > configuration directives to make the other APT use a cache directory on > the removable media - it would then download the files and you could take > them over to the other machine. > > The next option is to use apt-get --print-uris (in CVS) to print out a > lits of all the files that need to be fetched, you can then feed them to > whatever program you like. > > With the first option you can also convince APT to fetch and transfer > index files rather easially. Look in the apt.conf man page for pointers. > > Jason > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: RE: apt-get update failing > Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 03:58:59 -0600 (CST) > From: Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > Debian User List <[email protected]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Sat, 6 Feb 1999, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 5 Feb 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Yup. I've removed the Packages.gz files and had mirror reget them several > > > times. I also tried right from the ftp site ... > > > > Are you -sure- you have the right version? > > > > Hehe. I logged in to irc, and noticed that talon was having this exact same > prob. He said he got this error after upgrading to libc6 2.1-1. Downgrading > to 2.0.7.19981211-2 fixed it. > > Adam > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: RE: apt-get update failing > Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 03:34:44 -0700 (MST) > From: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > Debian User List <[email protected]>, > Deity Creation Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Adam Heath wrote: > > > > On Fri, 5 Feb 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > Yup. I've removed the Packages.gz files and had mirror reget them > > > > several > > > > times. I also tried right from the ftp site ... > > > > > > Are you -sure- you have the right version? > > > > > > > Hehe. I logged in to irc, and noticed that talon was having this exact same > > prob. He said he got this error after upgrading to libc6 2.1-1. > > Downgrading > > to 2.0.7.19981211-2 fixed it. > > Oh really? That means the C++ iostreams don't work right with 2.1!!! > > Jason > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Bug#33032: apt: apt does not count partial files whewn showing how > many ks to download > Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 14:11:37 -0200 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Package: apt > Version: 0.1.10 > > Need to get 8942k of archives. After unpacking 26.3M will be used. > > The only thing I was getting was emacs20, and I already had got 2MBs of it > (and > yeah, apt tried to resume). > > It should say something like 4096k/8942k. > > -- System Information > Debian Release: 2.1 > Kernel Version: Linux cesarb2 2.2.1 #1 Fri Jan 29 14:33:03 EDT 1999 i586 > unknown > > Versions of the packages apt depends on: > ii libc6 2.0.7.19981211 GNU Libc: shared libraries > ii libstdc++2.9 2.91.60-5 The GNU stdc++ library (egcs version) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Re: Bug#33032: apt: apt does not count partial files whewn showing > how many ks to download > Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 14:24:18 -0700 (MST) > From: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: APT Development Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Sun, 7 Feb 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Need to get 8942k of archives. After unpacking 26.3M will be used. > > > > The only thing I was getting was emacs20, and I already had got 2MBs of it > > (and > > yeah, apt tried to resume). > > > > It should say something like 4096k/8942k. > > Sorry, but there is no way to tell if the file can be resumed before > actually trying to download it, so either way the estimate will be wrong > for some people. I think it is better to estimate high than it is to > estimate low :> > > Jason > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Bug#33049: Apt could handle half-way-mirrored mirror sites better > Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 01:35:51 +0100 (CET) > From: Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Debian Bug System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > package: apt > version: 0.1.10 > severity: wishlist > > Hi, > > I have a request for the enhancement of the great program called Apt. I > have been using the 'apt' method for dselect for quite a long time now and > there is one thing I think could be better handled. It's mirror sites that > are not quite in sync with the main archive. > > There are a few mirror sites in my country to which I have faster access > than to ftp.debian.org, so my sources.list looks like this (yes, I have a > local mirror of non-us and I am following potato almost day-to-day): > > deb ftp://ftp.nluug.nl/pub/os/Linux/distr/Debian potato main contrib non-free > deb ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian potato main contrib non-free > deb file:/home/ftp/pub/debian/debian-non-US potato/binary-$(ARCH)/ > deb ftp://nonus.debian.org/debian potato main contrib non-free non-US > > deb ftp://ftp.nluug.nl/pub/os/Linux/distr/Debian slink main contrib non-free > deb ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian slink main contrib non-free > deb file:/home/ftp/pub/debian/debian-non-US slink/binary-$(ARCH)/ > deb ftp://nonus.debian.org/debian slink non-US > > Now, it happens a lot that ftp.nluug.nl has mirrored the latest Packages > file but not the newest .deb files. Most of the time it takes a day or two > before every package I want to upgrade has found its way to the mirror. In > the mean time, apt refuses to upgrade any of the already-downloaded > packages. I can call dpkg to install them, but that is of course a > suboptimal solution. > > I would like apt to be extended like this: > > - If a new package is to be installed, or an installed package is to be > upgraded, > 1 try to download the latest version from the first site in sources.list > that carries the latest version of the package > 2 if that fails, try to download the package from the next site that has > that version of the package > 3 if that fails and there are more sites that carry the same version of > the package, go to 2 > 4 if the package still hasn't been found, fail this package like the > current apt does > > That way, I could have a mirror site which is 'close' to me at the top of > sources.list, although it isn't always in sync with master. Second would > be a site which is somewhat further away, etc. etc. And ftp.debian.org > would be the last in the list because that site is assumed to be always > in sync. > > If I have been unclear in any way, please contact me. > > Remco > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Re: Bug#33049: Apt could handle half-way-mirrored mirror sites better > Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 18:40:48 -0700 (MST) > From: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: APT Development Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Remco Blaakmeer wrote: > > > I have a request for the enhancement of the great program called Apt. I > > have been using the 'apt' method for dselect for quite a long time now and > > there is one thing I think could be better handled. It's mirror sites that > > are not quite in sync with the main archive. > > APTv3 already does this (http://www.debian.org/~jgg) and there is already > a bug that describes pretty much exactly this so I'm going to close this > one. > > Jason > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Bug#33049: marked as done (Apt could handle half-way-mirrored mirror > sites better) > Date: Sun, 7 Feb 99 19:48 CST > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System) > To: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: APT Development Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Your message dated Sun, 7 Feb 1999 18:40:48 -0700 (MST) > with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > and subject line Bug#33049: Apt could handle half-way-mirrored mirror sites > better > 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; 8 Feb 1999 00:36:07 +0000 > Received: (qmail 14956 invoked from network); 8 Feb 1999 00:36:05 -0000 > Received: from unknown (HELO rd31-144.quicknet.nl) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > by master.debian.org with SMTP; 8 Feb 1999 00:36:05 -0000 > Received: by rd31-144.quicknet.nl > via sendmail from stdin > id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Debian Smail3.2.0.102) > for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 01:35:51 +0100 (CET) > Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 01:35:51 +0100 (CET) > From: Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: Debian Bug System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Apt could handle half-way-mirrored mirror sites better > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > package: apt > version: 0.1.10 > severity: wishlist > > Hi, > > I have a request for the enhancement of the great program called Apt. I > have been using the 'apt' method for dselect for quite a long time now and > there is one thing I think could be better handled. It's mirror sites that > are not quite in sync with the main archive. > > There are a few mirror sites in my country to which I have faster access > than to ftp.debian.org, so my sources.list looks like this (yes, I have a > local mirror of non-us and I am following potato almost day-to-day): > > deb ftp://ftp.nluug.nl/pub/os/Linux/distr/Debian potato main contrib non-free > deb ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian potato main contrib non-free > deb file:/home/ftp/pub/debian/debian-non-US potato/binary-$(ARCH)/ > deb ftp://nonus.debian.org/debian potato main contrib non-free non-US > > deb ftp://ftp.nluug.nl/pub/os/Linux/distr/Debian slink main contrib non-free > deb ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian slink main contrib non-free > deb file:/home/ftp/pub/debian/debian-non-US slink/binary-$(ARCH)/ > deb ftp://nonus.debian.org/debian slink non-US > > Now, it happens a lot that ftp.nluug.nl has mirrored the latest Packages > file but not the newest .deb files. Most of the time it takes a day or two > before every package I want to upgrade has found its way to the mirror. In > the mean time, apt refuses to upgrade any of the already-downloaded > packages. I can call dpkg to install them, but that is of course a > suboptimal solution. > > I would like apt to be extended like this: > > - If a new package is to be installed, or an installed package is to be > upgraded, > 1 try to download the latest version from the first site in sources.list > that carries the latest version of the package > 2 if that fails, try to download the package from the next site that has > that version of the package > 3 if that fails and there are more sites that carry the same version of > the package, go to 2 > 4 if the package still hasn't been found, fail this package like the > current apt does > > That way, I could have a mirror site which is 'close' to me at the top of > sources.list, although it isn't always in sync with master. Second would > be a site which is somewhat further away, etc. etc. And ftp.debian.org > would be the last in the list because that site is assumed to be always > in sync. > > If I have been unclear in any way, please contact me. > > Remco > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Re: Bug#33049: Apt could handle half-way-mirrored mirror sites better > Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 18:24:57 +0100 (CET) > From: Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: APT Development Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Remco Blaakmeer wrote: > > > > > I have a request for the enhancement of the great program called Apt. I > > > have been using the 'apt' method for dselect for quite a long time now and > > > there is one thing I think could be better handled. It's mirror sites that > > > are not quite in sync with the main archive. > > > > APTv3 already does this (http://www.debian.org/~jgg) and there is already > > a bug that describes pretty much exactly this so I'm going to close this > > one. > > Ok. It's great to hear that you people have already been working on this > problem. Keep up the good work. > > Remco > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: gnome-apt > Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:09:59 -0500 (EST) > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hi > > Sorry for the bother. > > As closely as possible I followed the instructions at > http://www.debian.org/~hp/gnome-apt.html > > I added > deb http://www.debian.org/~mblevin/gnome-apt ./ > to my apt/sources file, updated, downloaded and installed. > > gnome-apt will start and I can view the installed files, but I can't > update: > > Update failed. > The following errors may help: > The method driver /usr/lib/apt/methods/ftp could not be found. > > I saw one other person with this note on the linux.debian.user group, > but saw no response. > > I also tried compiling the source from scratch, but that too failed to > produce the ftp object. In fact I manually descended to the ftp > directory and ran make, but encountered > > bash-2.01$ make > Compiling parsescript.cc to ../../obj/methods/ftp/parsescript.o > parsescript.cc:16: strutl.h: No such file or directory > make: *** [../../obj/methods/ftp/parsescript.o] Error 1 > > Any suggestions welcome. > > Thanks > > Tom > > -- > Thomas R. Shemanske > (Mailing Address) (Office/Internet Information) > Department of Mathematics 203 Choate House > 6188 Bradley Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Dartmouth College http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~trs/ > Hanover, NH 03755-3551 (603) 646 - 3179 > > Directions: http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~trs/choatehouse.html > > Winter Term Office Hours: MWF 3-4:30 pm, Tu 10-11:15 am > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Re: gnome-apt > Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:12:11 -0600 (CST) > From: Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Update failed. > > The following errors may help: > > The method driver /usr/lib/apt/methods/ftp could not be found. > > > > The ftp method does not work in the latest Apt, so it's not in the > package. The error you're getting is exactly correct. :-) > Use http if possible. > > I should add a note to the web page, since this is sort of a FAQ. > > Thanks, > Havoc > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Re: gnome-apt > Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 16:24:05 -0500 > From: Mitch Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > In foo.debian-deity, you wrote: > > Hi > > > > Sorry for the bother. > > > > As closely as possible I followed the instructions at > > http://www.debian.org/~hp/gnome-apt.html > > > > I added > > deb http://www.debian.org/~mblevin/gnome-apt ./ > > to my apt/sources file, updated, downloaded and installed. > > > > gnome-apt will start and I can view the installed files, but I can't > > update: > > > > Update failed. > > The following errors may help: > > The method driver /usr/lib/apt/methods/ftp could not be found. > > > > > > I saw one other person with this note on the linux.debian.user group, > > but saw no response. > > > > I also tried compiling the source from scratch, but that too failed to > > produce the ftp object. In fact I manually descended to the ftp > > directory and ran make, but encountered > > > > bash-2.01$ make > > Compiling parsescript.cc to ../../obj/methods/ftp/parsescript.o > > parsescript.cc:16: strutl.h: No such file or directory > > make: *** [../../obj/methods/ftp/parsescript.o] Error 1 > > Apt 0.3.0 does not have a working ftp method yet. > If you _have_ to use ftp, then you must downgrade apt to 0.1.10 and > uninstall gnome-apt. > If possible, just use an http url such as http://http.us.debian.org > > To fix your compile problem, just change the > #include <strutl.h> > > to > > #include <apt-pkg/strutl.h> > > But I don't think it works even if you get it to compile. > Others on the list may correct me on this. > > -Mitch > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Re: gnome-apt > Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 20:48:20 -0200 > From: Lalo Martins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Feb 09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] decided to present us with: > > > > Update failed. > > The following errors may help: > > The method driver /usr/lib/apt/methods/ftp could not be found. > > Shouldn't the package be rebuilt (maybe renumbered 0.3.1 or even > 0.3.0.4), and some big obvious warnings added like "This release > has no ftp method"? Perhaps in the "Description:" header, > postinst, --help, and even when it runs? Or optionally add a > fake ftp method that prints the warning and returns an error? > > []s, > |alo > +---- > -- > I am Lalo of deB-org. You will be freed. > Resistance is futile. > > http://www.webcom.com/lalo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > pgp key in the web page > > Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Re: gnome-apt > Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 21:07:54 -0500 > From: Mitch Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > In foo.debian-deity, you wrote: > > On Feb 09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] decided to present us with: > > > > > > Update failed. > > > The following errors may help: > > > The method driver /usr/lib/apt/methods/ftp could not be found. > > > > Shouldn't the package be rebuilt (maybe renumbered 0.3.1 or even > > 0.3.0.4), and some big obvious warnings added like "This release > > has no ftp method"? Perhaps in the "Description:" header, > > postinst, --help, and even when it runs? Or optionally add a > > fake ftp method that prints the warning and returns an error? > > I recompiled apt 0.3.0 and posted it with gnome-apt because it had > features not present in the already-posted apt 0.3.0 > > Looking back, this was a bad idea to have another apt with the same > rev floating around.... but too late now. > I also should have put an ftp warning in the description, but... doh! > > I hope that a 0.3.1 will be released soon, then I can have gnome-apt > depend on apt >= 0.3.1 and pull 0.3.0 from the directory housing > gnome-apt. > > -Mitch > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Processed: > Date: Wed, 10 Feb 99 18:03 CST > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System) > To: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: [email protected] (#33032), > APT Development Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>(apt #32919 #33032) > > Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > close 33032 > Bug#33032: apt: apt does not count partial files whewn showing how many ks to > download > Bug closed, ack sent to submitter - they'd better know why ! > > > severity 32919 wishlist > Bug#32919: apt: wish: when not enough disk space, incremental install : > speedup! > Severity set to `wishlist'. > > > merge 30505 > Unknown command or malformed arguments to command. > > > done > Unknown command or malformed arguments to command. > > > > End of message, stopping processing here. > > Please contact me if you need assistance. > > Ian Jackson > (administrator, Debian bugs database) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: bug? > Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 12:23:45 +0100 > From: Jozsa Kristof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > kami:~# apt-get install g++ > Reading Package Lists... Done > Building Dependency Tree... Done > 1 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 24 not upgraded. > 4 packages not fully installed or removed. > 0,1200978 > How odd.. The sizes didn't match, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Need to get 0 of archives. After unpacking 30.7k will be freed. > E: I wasn't able to locate file for the mtools package. This might mean you > need to manually fix this package. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Bug#33291: When a package is marked as "purge", apt changes it into > "remove" > Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:57:18 +0100 (CET) > From: Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Debian Bug System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > package: apt > version: 0.1.10 > > Hi, > > Currently, I am using the "apt" method in dselect for installing and > removing packages. However, there is some behaviour that could be better. > > If I want to really get rid of a package, I mark it as "purge" in dselect. > This assures me, that there are no conffiles, startup scripts etc. left on > my system. But as soon as I choose [I]nstall in dselect's main menu, apt > changes all these "purge" marks into "remove" marks. This is very much > undesired behaviour. If I want a package to be "remove"d, remove it. If I > want a package to be "purge"d, purge it. But please, do not assume that I > do not really want to erase the config files. I really do want to erase > them in most cases. > > Remco > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: "Offline" apt > Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 21:09:01 +0100 > From: Florian Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hello, apt developers, > > I'm terribly sorry someone already sent me > information on this, but I deleted it. :-( > > My question is: > How can one make apt spool the list of > packages to get on a removable medium, > which can be then carried to another > computer with a better network connection. > Ideally it should be possible to switch > easily between normal and 'spooling' apt > operation, because I want get single packages > the normal way via my usual dialup connection, > but large transfers like dist-upgrade by > the removable media method. > > It would be also nice to have a switch smiliar > to -s that shows all URLs to be downloaded, > that it can be processed with tools like wget > on a non-debian System. > The kind poster of the mail I deleted said > this was possible with the apt version in CVS. > Can anyone direct me to some information how > to use the debian/apt CVS server do you have > CVS snapshots available? > > Thanks in advance, > > Florian Laws
