Re: 2.3.6 uploaded
"Christian T. Steigies" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 02:44:37AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > Boot-floppies 2.3.6 for i386, powerpc, and source, has been uploaded.
> How much time do we have before you upload 2.3.7? I have 2.3.5 ready for
> m68k, but I can't get it through the phone line...
How are you going to upload it at all if you can't get it through the
I don't know when I'm going to release the next boot-floppies. The
version number is going to be 3.0.0. I have to release it when it's
Its more important to have *some* version available for m68k than to
have it be the latest. I doubt there will be all that many changes
between 2.3.6 and 3.0.0, or, if there are, it will be a ways off.
> One is the downloading of packages, it works for some, it doesn't work for
> others, I suspect (without any proof yet) that it does work for others, only
> the error message is wrong/misleading. This is from my lastest try on a
> networked machine, boot-floppies-2.3.6 installed, no changes to the config
> I: downloading kernel-image-2.2.19-atari
> I: downloading required packages from files
> E: Couldn't find package debootstrap
> can't find package, or no such package, 'ash'
> can't find package, or no such package, 'base-passwd'
> can't find package, or no such package, 'busybox'
> can't find package, or no such package, 'dhcp-client'
> can't find package, or no such package, 'debootstrap'
> can't find package, or no such package, 'e2fsprogs'
> So the kernel-image is downloaded fine, then when a bunch of packages is to
> be downloaded, it fails. There is no deboostrap package in the archive for
> m68k, maybe it chockes on that and (erroneously) "fails" on all the others
> as well? I know that we have "ash" and many others in the archive.
You need to run the shell script with the 'verbose' environment
variable turned on and examine the output.
> Now that I built debootstrap and put it into /archive/debian/Incoming the
> build does not fail at this place. Which I find is a pretty good proof of
> the "misleading" error messages, maybe its even wrong.
The error clearly is apt-get failing out, then the script is merrily
running along and noticing that it cannot find any of the packages
that were supposed to be downloaded. Sorta a "cascading" problem.
Well, I'll look at fixing the error output... I don't really see how
it's a big priority, though... If you look at the first error (from
apt-get, I believe) then the cause is pretty clear....
You say "does not fail at this place" -- where does it fail, then?
.....Adam Di Carlo....email@example.com.....<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>