Your message dated Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:08:13 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line apt-utils: should depend on newer apt?
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 27 Jun 2003 04:19:34 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jun 26 23:19:34 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from h239-211.state.resnet.albany.edu (bouncybouncy.net)
[169.226.239.211]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19Vkhx-0000g0-00; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 23:19:33 -0500
Received: by bouncybouncy.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 54A85E3A4; Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:19:35 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Justin A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: apt-utils: should depend on newer apt?
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.15
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:19:35 -0400
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0
tests=HAS_PACKAGE
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_06_18
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_06_18
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: apt-utils
Version: 0.5.5.1
Severity: important
Tags: sid
I was seeing the:
E: Unparsible control file
with apt-ftparchive
I had upgraded apt-utils a while ago, but left apt alone...
upgrading apt to apt_0.5.5.1 made the problem go away
apt-utils needs to depend on the newer apt?
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux s.bouncybouncy.net 2.4.21-rc6 #1 Thu May 29 22:55:34 EDT 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
Versions of packages apt-utils depends on:
ii apt [libapt-pkg-libc6.3-5-3. 0.5.5.1 Advanced front-end for dpkg
ii libc6 2.3.1-17 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libdb2 2:2.7.7.0-8 The Berkeley database routines (ru
ii libgcc1 1:3.3-0pre9 GCC support library
ii libstdc++5 1:3.3-0pre9 The GNU Standard C++ Library v3
-- no debconf information
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 198978-done) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Jul 2003 19:11:39 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 17 14:08:16 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19dE6v-00053G-00; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:08:13 -0500
Received: from 216-15-124-77.c3-0.smr-ubr3.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com
([216.15.124.77] helo=mizar.alcor.net)
by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #4)
id 19dE6w-00050Y-00
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:08:14 -0400
Received: from mdz by mizar.alcor.net with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 19dE6v-0002sz-00
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:08:13 -0400
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:08:13 -0400
From: Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: apt-utils: should depend on newer apt?
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
Sender: Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_10,USER_AGENT_MUTT
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_06_27
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_06_27
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
> I had upgraded apt-utils a while ago, but left apt alone... upgrading apt
> to apt_0.5.5.1 made the problem go away
>
> apt-utils needs to depend on the newer apt?
This was simply a bug in apt 0.5.5 which was fixed in 0.5.5.1, nothing more.
The current dependency relationship is correct.
--
- mdz
