[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Installing packages

On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Michael Schmitz wrote:

> > Actually, I was able to install the packages using a 2.1 kernel if I
> > fooled the system into thinking that some stuff was already there.
> > binutils was crashing because /man/man7/undocumented.7.gz was being
> > pointed at (by gasp.1.gz) and it didn't exist.  Placing a file in
> > /man/man7 called undoc(etc) made dpkg happy.
> That may work for some packages, but it's a pretty ugly hack (the ownership
> of file is changed, not the one of the symlink IIRC, which may or may 
> not be what you really want), browse the list archives for suggestions 
> how to automate this sick hack. 

Well, gcc was the only package that required me to "create" (copy /
rename) a file.  When I get man-db working I will go thru the manuals and
weed out the nasty things I did.

With the other two packages, both had troubles setting a symbolic link to
a file that didn't exist... yet!  In one .deb, it wanted to symlink a
directory that wasn't unpacked from the archive yet, and in the other, it
was for a file (again, in the manuals)

I expect this "problem" wouldn't have appeared if I'd been upgrading, but
as I am working off a bare-bones clean system, and don't have full access
to all the good stuff at the FTP site, I expect I'm missing out on
something important.

Next time I will start by downloading all the "depends" packages BEFORE I
download the ones I want ;-)

Got libc6-dev today at school (100 Megabit internet... drool) so we'll see
if I can get it to go without any problems.

> Again, the proper solution is to use a 2.0 kernel (or to upgrade to 
> Debian 2.1).

Why is this?  Does the 2.0 kernel do a multipass thru the .deb archive
before it bails out?  Or is it Beyond My Comprehension (tm)?

Reply to: