[Bug 1086997] Re: apt-get fails if a package has a space in its Filename

2013-07-10 Thread Launchpad Bug Tracker
This bug was fixed in the package apt - 0.9.9.1~ubuntu1 --- apt (0.9.9.1~ubuntu1) saucy; urgency=low * merged from the debian/sid branch: - debian/gbp.conf: change build branch to ubuntu/master - use ubuntu keyring and ubuntu archive keyring in apt-key - run

[Bug 1086997] Re: apt-get fails if a package has a space in its Filename

2013-01-30 Thread Launchpad Bug Tracker
** Branch linked: lp:~mvo/apt/source-hashes -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1086997 Title: apt-get fails if a package has a space in its Filename To manage notifications about this

[Bug 1086997] Re: apt-get fails if a package has a space in its Filename

2013-01-11 Thread Michael Vogt
Thanks for the bugreport and the patch. Given the trivial nature of the patch and that indeed http is used outside of a strict packages context sometimes (e.g. changelogs and in the future potentially more) I applied it to the bzr tree and it will be part of the next upload. ** Changed in: apt

[Bug 1086997] Re: apt-get fails if a package has a space in its Filename

2012-12-05 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
What I meant by saying that appendix D wasn't relevant was only that it doesn't say anything particularly helpful about the syntax of a Filename: field. I agree that any attempt to modify 5.1 is pointless, and it's not any trouble in my particular case to simply conform more closely to the

Re: [Bug 1086997] Re: apt-get fails if a package has a space in its Filename

2012-12-05 Thread Daniel Hartwig
On 6 December 2012 14:06, Thomas Bushnell BSG 1086...@bugs.launchpad.net wrote: And in my case, there was an independent bug *producing* the directories with spaces in them which I did not intend. Ah, I had thought you were stuck with those directories! -- You received this bug notification

Re: [Bug 1086997] Re: apt-get fails if a package has a space in its Filename

2012-12-05 Thread Thomas Bushnell, BSG
No, certainly not. The details are embarrassing for a public bug so I was being cagey. :) I was parsing Source: lines incorrectly. The policy manual says that version numbers on a Source line are allowed in .changes and .deb controls, but not .dsc. This makes sense; for .debs in particular they