* Jeffrey B. Green j...@kikisoso.org [110302 15:27]:
As a final note in the context of a wishlist item, it would (still) be
good to have some procedure, either written in the documentation (and
not hidden too much) or in executable form, for doing an overall
consistency check of the local
On 03/03/2011 05:29 AM, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Jeffrey B. Greenj...@kikisoso.org [110302 15:27]:
As a final note in the context of a wishlist item, it would (still) be
good to have some procedure, either written in the documentation (and
not hidden too much) or in executable form, for doing
On 02/28/2011 03:20 PM, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Jeffrey B. Greenj...@kikisoso.org [110228 19:39]:
I did a fill from the i386 arch which I assume is how they got there.
It may have been a dumb thing to try, but I was assuming that
non-appropriate arch files would not fill, so to speak.
Uh
* Jeffrey B. Green j...@kikisoso.org [110223 14:33]:
On 02/22/2011 03:42 PM, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Jeffrey B. Greenj...@kikisoso.org [110222 20:09]:
The problem that I had originally was that the files related to the
release were indeed downloaded via an 'update' however the information
Bernhard,
On 02/28/2011 01:19 PM, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Jeffrey B. Greenj...@kikisoso.org [110223 14:33]:
On 02/22/2011 03:42 PM, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Jeffrey B. Greenj...@kikisoso.org [110222 20:09]:
The problem that I had originally was that the files related to the
release
* Jeffrey B. Green j...@kikisoso.org [110228 19:39]:
I did a fill from the i386 arch which I assume is how they got there.
It may have been a dumb thing to try, but I was assuming that
non-appropriate arch files would not fill, so to speak.
Uh oh. That really copies packages with wrong
On 02/22/2011 03:42 PM, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Jeffrey B. Greenj...@kikisoso.org [110222 20:09]:
The problem that I had originally was that the files related to the
release were indeed downloaded via an 'update' however the information
that was kept in the db/packages.db was wrong and
On 02/22/2011 03:42 PM, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Jeffrey B. Greenj...@kikisoso.org [110222 20:09]:
The problem that I had originally was that the files related to the
release were indeed downloaded via an 'update' however the information
that was kept in the db/packages.db was wrong and
On 02/14/2011 02:48 PM, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Jeffrey B. Greenj...@kikisoso.org [110213 21:15]:
- something else?
what should it check for?
Basically it is a tool for checking that the local db/packages.db is in
synchronization with the Packages file(s) on the master repository if
* Jeffrey B. Green j...@kikisoso.org [110222 20:09]:
The problem that I had originally was that the files related to the
release were indeed downloaded via an 'update' however the information
that was kept in the db/packages.db was wrong and consequently the
distribution Packages file was
On 02/14/2011 02:48 PM, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Jeffrey B. Greenj...@kikisoso.org [110213 21:15]:
- checking all packages in a distribution have a source package in that
distribution?
i.e. what 'reprepro sourcemissing' does (introduced in 4.3.0)?
I can't find a reference to this
On 02/14/2011 02:48 PM, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Jeffrey B. Greenj...@kikisoso.org [110213 21:15]:
[...snip...]
That sounds a bit like the above. Could you try if that is what you
want? (i.e. add a '-' as first part of Update:, run checkupdate and
remove the '-' again).
Sorry. I should
* Jeffrey B. Green j...@kikisoso.org [110213 21:15]:
- checking all packages in a distribution have a source package in that
distribution?
i.e. what 'reprepro sourcemissing' does (introduced in 4.3.0)?
I can't find a reference to this action in the manpage.
I think you only have
Package: reprepro
Version: 4.2.0-2
Severity: wishlist
During the squeeze upgrade period I'd discovered an inconsistency that had
entered into my repository mirror. I suspect it happened when I did a pull for
the armel packages and didn't specify it correctly. Consequently the wrong
packages were
* Jeff Green j...@kikisoso.org [110213 17:39]:
During the squeeze upgrade period I'd discovered an inconsistency that had
entered into my repository mirror. I suspect it happened when I did a pull for
the armel packages and didn't specify it correctly. Consequently the wrong
packages were then
On 02/13/2011 01:05 PM, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Jeff Greenj...@kikisoso.org [110213 17:39]:
During the squeeze upgrade period I'd discovered an inconsistency that had
entered into my repository mirror. I suspect it happened when I did a pull for
the armel packages and didn't specify it
16 matches
Mail list logo
