Bug#56934: Bruce Sass: Re: Bug#56934: boot floppies
Didn't get cc'd to bug.
------- Forwarded Message
Delivery-Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 11:24:00 -0500
Received: by arroz.fake (Postfix, from userid 0)
id 5E9AD938CB; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 11:24:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca (IDENT:firstname.lastname@example.org [188.8.131.52])
by queso.onshore.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id CAA24342
for <email@example.com>; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 02:01:50 -0600
Received: from fn2.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
by fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca (8.8.7/8.7.3)
with ESMTP id BAA20554;
Fri, 4 Feb 2000 01:07:23 -0700
Received: from localhost
by fn2.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca (8.8.7/8.7.3)
with SMTP id BAA27294;
Fri, 4 Feb 2000 01:07:39 -0700
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 01:07:39 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Sass <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Joey Hess <email@example.com>
Cc: Adam Di Carlo <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#56934: boot floppies
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20000203232558.A1951@paper.kitenet.net>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Are you being obtuse on purpose.
You cut message so that its subject is lost, then babble about filing a
bug report on imaginary sources.list entries. No one said anything
about sources.list entries. I called you on an inaccurate statement you
made and demonstrated why it was inaccurate, cutting your statement out
of the message and calling mine immaterial will not change reality.
The fact of the matter is that apt-get works fine with the data I gave
it via apt-setup, apt-setup then decides the data is not good enough and
wants me to re-enter it. The reason it behaves like that is because the
way it is coded assumes, incorrectly, that any message from apt is fatal
to apt's operation.
So, either you were too damn lazy to do it properly, or apt-get's output
is not good enough for apt-setup to distinguish between a fatal error
and a warning message. Whatever the reason, the consequence is the
same: base-config requires one to have all the Packages and Sources
files hanging around before it lets you configure apt, even though
apt-get would work just fine with only one of those files available.
I really don't care what you guys do about this one, apt will get
purged when setting up potato for my own use anyways. I'll test the bf
sets to the extent my hardware will allow, report on what I see, and
make recommendations where I see fit... but I will not start playing
word games or wasting time arguing with `programmers' who have trouble
understanding how their own code interacts with the other bits of the
system. I mean, it is just so F'n obvious what the bug report and my
comment attached to it is about that I have a hard time believing anyone
who looked at the bits in question would get confused, especially the
maintainer of the package the code belongs to.
- - Bruce
(pissed off at what he perceives as being nothing more than an attempt
to cover one's butt from well deserved criticism by obfuscating the
On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> Bruce Sass wrote:
> > That is not an accurate statement, base-config uses apt-setup.
> That's immaterial, apt-setup is part of base-config.
> > "Apt-get update" runs fine, but the whiptail dialog reappears
> > and asks me to re-enter the data destined for /etc/apt/sources.list;
> > this appears to be under the control of apt-setup from the base-config
> > package.
> apt-setup uses apt to generate that error message you see. In fact, it
> simply looks at apt's returns code and standard error, and dumps the
> standerd error output to you verbatim. I do not see how this can be a bug in
> apt-setup. if you think it is, I would suggest you file a proper bug report,
> with the apt sources.list entries that cause the problem.
> see shy jo, in New York
------- End of Forwarded Message