also sprach Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.08.03.1713 +0200]:
The subsidiary Release files are supposed to have their checksums in the
top-level Release file, as on ftp.debian.org.
Fair enough, but you will agree that including ./Release is
completely useless.
--
.''`. martin f.
also sprach Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.08.03.0103 +0200]:
There is no way for apt to tell which one is the release file that you are
regenerating.
For one, it could ignore the Release* files. Alternatively, it
should be able to deduce from the contents, but that might be
overkill.
On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 11:09:29AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.08.03.0103 +0200]:
There is no way for apt to tell which one is the release file that you are
regenerating.
For one, it could ignore the Release* files. Alternatively, it
On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 05:09:08PM +0300, martin f krafft wrote:
Package: apt-utils
Version: 0.5.28.6
Severity: normal
File: /usr/bin/apt-ftparchive
If the Release file already exists and is to be overwritten with
apt-ftparchive like so:
apt-ftparchive release . | Release
it will
Package: apt-utils
Version: 0.5.28.6
Severity: normal
File: /usr/bin/apt-ftparchive
If the Release file already exists and is to be overwritten with
apt-ftparchive like so:
apt-ftparchive release . | Release
it will include hash sums of the Release file in the new one.
However, the Release
5 matches
Mail list logo
