Re: Wheezy: "aptitude update" fails
On Tue, 22 May 2012 03:30:55 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
> Just to be clear. For the archives.
The archives is precisely what you should read before replying to a post
to get a full understanding on the problem. If you have any doubt, just
ask.
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 03:55:49PM +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 03:11:30 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> This: (We'll call it error 1 for clarity)
>
>> >> > E: Some index files failed to download. They have been ignored, or
>> >> > old ones used instead.
>
> is not fixed by:
>
>> >> Clean your local apt cache:
>> >>
>> >> apt-get clean
Yet again with the same... Now we know the error is not at the user side,
that can make sense but not before. Anyway, I was thinking in "E:
Couldn't rebuild package cache" message that was one of the first errors
the OP got.
>> But apt was not complaining on the "local" index files...
>
> So you are refering to a different error to the one from above? i.e. NOT
> error 1 ?
> If yes, then it wasn't clear from your post.
Then read the thread starting from the first post, dude.
>> > The command "apt-get clean" clears out files under:
>> > /var/cache/apt/archives/
>> >
>> > Just wiped out your downloaded files. :(
>
>> And that was exactly the point, removing the local cache of downloaded
>> deb files which could be bad or broken because of the presence of a
>> proxy.
>
> Really? In what way do you mean bad or broken? Each package is digitally
> signed.
I've seen problems in the past when using apt-get or aptitude and the
local cache was not generated properly. A broken connection or using a
proxy can trigger that.
> In fact, if the subject is correct, any files under
> "/var/cache/apt/archives/" have nothing to do with aptitude update
> failing.
The subject of the post is one thing and the logs and tests done
afterwards are another thing. The problem was finally at the repos.
> Sorry if I misunderstood, but your sugestion that: apt-get clean
>
> will fix the error:
>
> E: Some index files failed to download. They have been ignored, or old
> ones used instead.
>
> is simply not true.
Yes, you reached the wrong conclusion for my advice because I had not in
mind to solve a specific message error what's what you seemed to
understand...
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
Reply to: