Hi Michael, sorry that I answer this late. ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- > Hi! > > [...] > > > > > I used the ''-a'' with i386 and the mirror was build correctly, but > > still a problem remained: Some most packages installed but some were > > missing, eg. the kernel. I found that the kernel was there but apt > > was looking for a slightly different version of the available one. > > Apt wanted to install an older version but the newest was available > > on my mirror. > > So, again digging into ''fai-mirror'' again... > > I found the problem in the last lines of code. > > > > fai-mirror original (last lines): > > > > [...] > > > > > You can see that ''find'' is called several times. That causes > > problems if ''find'' finds more than one match. And it does that in > > some cases because not all packages belong to i386. Specially the > > kernel of the AMD64 Systems is not included in the i386 binary-tree. > > But since it is included (as a standard) the > > ''package_config/DEFAULT'' ''fai-mirror'' downloads it anyway. > > So, the execution of the following statements fail (without breaking > > the fai-mirror script) and prevent generating the new > > Release,Package,Package.gz files. This causes the described problem. > > > > Now, finally after all this description, I present you my solution. > > It works, but it might be not perfect. The benefit should also be > > that you only need to build the mirror with the following command > > and get a combined i386 and AMD64 mirror (but I did not yet verify > > this due to time issues): > > > > [...] > > Thanks a lot for looking into this problem in such detail. It seems > that the -a > option was not properly implemented at some point. This point, > however, remained > unclear to me: Which version of FAI are you using? I've looked at the > code in > current trunk and unfortunately it seems that the patch you described > will no > longer apply: These parts of the code have been rewritten a while ago. > Could you > hence please do us a favour: Could you give the experimental packages > (current > version should be 4.0~beta2+experimental28) a try? It's absolutely > possible that > these suffer from the same brokenness, but it would be very important > to be sure > about it.
I am using the lenny backports Version 3.3.5. That seems to be not the newest. I am very busy these days, so I am not able to test it right now. It will probably take at least one moth till I have time to test it. Regards, Corren
