On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 05:32:26PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 03:49:27PM -0700, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > Could anyone please explain this to me? Did Corel do anything to their files
> > that makes apt think it has to upgrade although its up-to-date? Or is this
> > a bu
On 1 Sep 2000, Alex Romosan wrote:
> with 'apt-get source -b '. what's the point in having the
> ability to download the source and recompile it automatically if the
> next upgrade will wipe it out. if i choose to recompile a package, apt
Mostly to compile versions that are not available for 'st
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 09:31:57PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > [Alex Romosan wrote:]
> > > which are not on by default and then i have to put the packages on
> > > hold because apt wants to get the remote ones.
> >
> > You have to do this anyhow, o
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 09:31:57PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> [Alex Romosan wrote:]
> > which are not on by default and then i have to put the packages on
> > hold because apt wants to get the remote ones.
>
> You have to do this anyhow, otherwise the package will get upgraded
> and you will l
On Thu 31 Aug 2000, Michael Meskes wrote:
>
> Which of course is correct. Not only the md5sum is different but also the
> filesize. Wonder what they did with the source.
It doesn't take much to create a different filesize. E.g. different
timestamps in the archive will lead to different compressio
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 02:47:15PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> What needs to be done is diff the record from the corel package file
> against what is in their .deb and see if there is a difference in any
> fields.
Yup, md5sum and size.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael@Fam-Meskes.De
Go SF 49
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 09:57:38PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> It means the libc6 package you have installed has a different md5sum then
> the package it finds on ftp.corel.com, and assumes that the version on
> ftp.corel.com is a newer recompile. Strange logic, but that is how
Which of cours
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 06:36:34AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 05:37:52PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > (especially since this looks like just the well-established behavior of
> >downloading changed packages..)
>
> I dont have a
Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 30 Aug 2000, Alex Romosan wrote:
>
> > can we please, please reverse the behaviour, or at least make it
> > configurable in /etc/apt/apt.conf, something like PreferLocal "yes".
> > if there is such an option and i missed it, please point it out to
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 05:37:52PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> (especially since this looks like just the well-established behavior of
>downloading changed packages..)
I dont have a example right now, but on my system aptitude will download the
same package again and again. So in case it
On 30 Aug 2000, Alex Romosan wrote:
> > It means the libc6 package you have installed has a different md5sum then
> > the package it finds on ftp.corel.com, and assumes that the version on
No, this is not at all how it works..
> which are not on by default and then i have to put the packages on
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It means the libc6 package you have installed has a different md5sum then
> the package it finds on ftp.corel.com, and assumes that the version on
> ftp.corel.com is a newer recompile. Strange logic, but that is how
> libapt-pkg thinks.
>
this is so
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 05:36:12PM -0400, Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 05:32:26PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> was heard to say:
> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 03:49:27PM -0700, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > > Could anyone please explain
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 05:32:26PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 03:49:27PM -0700, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > Could anyone please explain this to me? Did Corel do anything to their files
> > that makes apt think it has to upgrade although its
Previously Michael Meskes wrote:
> Could anyone please explain this to me? Did Corel do anything to their files
> that makes apt think it has to upgrade although its up-to-date? Or is this
> a bug in apt?
It means the libc6 package you have installed has a different md5sum then
the package it find
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Michael Meskes wrote:
> | Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed
> |/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err:
> uppercase=bad)
> ||/ NameVersionDescription
> +++-===-==-===
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > Could anyone please explain this to me? Did Corel do anything to their files
> > that makes apt think it has to upgrade although its up-to-date? Or is this
> > a bug in apt?
>
> I see this quite often, so it is a bug in the curret apt lib. aptitude
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 03:49:27PM -0700, Michael Meskes wrote:
> Could anyone please explain this to me? Did Corel do anything to their files
> that makes apt think it has to upgrade although its up-to-date? Or is this
> a bug in apt?
I see this quite often, so it is a bug in the curret apt lib.
I just tried to upgrade my Corel installation via the net and have some
strange behaviour when using apt:
feivel:~# dpkg -l libc6ΒΈ
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge
| Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed
|/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Sta
> "Andreas" == Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andreas> On 20 Mar 2000, Brian May wrote:
>> I have to agree with Jason here, I was confused. In this case
>> the error is generating by apt-get, in my case the error was
>> generated by dpkg.
>>
>> I will take J
On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 10:29:35AM +0100 , Andreas Tille wrote:
> By the way. Shouldn't dpkg at least warn that md5 sums are wrong?
It can't. dpkg doesn't know the md5sum of the .deb.
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL
On 20 Mar 2000, Brian May wrote:
> I have to agree with Jason here, I was confused. In this case the
> error is generating by apt-get, in my case the error was generated by
> dpkg.
>
> I will take Jason's word for it that a deb file with bytes missing can
> still be valid...
OK, I take the word a
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> That doesn't mean anything, if the file was only 1 byte short chances are
> it would still be entirely valid, dpkg -i would take it, apt would not due
> to a size and md5 mismatch.
Do you expect a file of size 1 byte to install and work without
problem
> "Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jason> On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> output after failing to install 42 packages). I repeat: All
>> packages were installable with dpkg -i after apt-get was unable
>> to install
Jason> That doesn't m
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Andreas Tille wrote:
> output after failing to install 42 packages). I repeat: All packages
> were installable with dpkg -i after apt-get was unable to install
That doesn't mean anything, if the file was only 1 byte short chances are
it would still be entirely valid, dpkg -
On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On 18 Mar 2000, Brian May wrote:
>
> > I believe the original poster used dpkg -i to install the same copy
> > that apt had downloaded - ie only one copy ever downloaded.
>
> Then dpkg should have failed to install it since it is a truncated file.
No
On 18 Mar 2000, Brian May wrote:
> I believe the original poster used dpkg -i to install the same copy
> that apt had downloaded - ie only one copy ever downloaded.
Then dpkg should have failed to install it since it is a truncated file.
> Not sure about libtool, but have a look at bugs 60339
> "Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jason> Maybe in the time you downloaded the new file your mirror
Jason> fixed itself. That error means the .deb it fetched was too
Jason> small, ie still being downloaded.
I believe the original poster used dpkg -i to insta
On 18 Mar 2000, Brian May wrote:
> >> libtool 1.3.3-9 [177kB] Failed to fetch
> >>
> http://ftp.tu-clausthal.de/pub/linux/debian/dists/frozen/main/binary-i386/devel/libtool_1.3.3-9.deb
> >> Size mismatch E: Unable to fetch some archives, maybe try with
> >> --fix-missing?
>
> "Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jason> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done
>> The following NEW packages will be installed: libtool 0
>> packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, paul wrote:
> I had the same problem (and same output) when doing "apt-get upgrade" last
> night. I used "apt-get clean" and "apt-get install man-db" before trying
> "apt-get upgrade" again. The problem went away, so I thought it had been a
> hardware problem on my end, b
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 19:18:24 +0530, Syed said:
> > On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:17:54 +0100 (CET), Andreas Tille <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> said:
> Andreas>
> http://ftp.tu-clausthal.de/pub/linux/debian/dists/frozen/main/binary-i386/devel/libtool_1.3.3-9.deb
> Andreas> Size mismatch E: Una
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Reading Package Lists... Done
> Building Dependency Tree... Done
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
> libtool
> 0 packages upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 13 not upgraded.
> Need to get 177kB of archives. After unpacking 681k
On 15 Mar 2000, Syed Khader Vali wrote:
> I got the same error when I was doing an apt-get upgrade last
> night. It was with man-db. But when I did an apt-get upgrade after
> sometime again, it did not reget the package again, but installed with
You are mory lucky than me because I tried the same
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:17:54 +0100 (CET), Andreas Tille <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> said:
Andreas>
http://ftp.tu-clausthal.de/pub/linux/debian/dists/frozen/main/binary-i386/devel/libtool_1.3.3-9.deb
Andreas> Size mismatch E: Unable to fetch some archives, maybe try
Andreas> with -
Hallo,
since last week I have a problem when upgrading potato.
In the dselect install process after obtaining the necessary
packages I get mysterious "Size mismatch" for all packages.
All the packages are stored
/var/cache/apt/archives/partial
and a `dpkg -i /var/cache/apt/archives/partial/*
36 matches
Mail list logo
