Bug#144564: Should not we deprecate Packages in favour of Packages.gz?
A Release file created by hand made the boot floppies to complain in this way:
no entry for main/binary-i386/Packages
but there was an entry for main/binary-i386/Packages.gz.
apt-ftparchive(1) is quite complex and not very easy to understand.
I wish the boot floppies not to switch to "mirror_style release"
(in debootstrap language) yet in woody, but if that's already decided,
at least users should not be forced to have uncompressed "Packages" files,
since they were not required at all in potato by APT and friends.
[ The current status of things is some sort of step backwards ].
I haven't looked at the code, but it could be as simple as looking for
main/binary-i386/Packages.gz, then looking for main/binary-i386/Packages
if Packages.gz was not found, in that order.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org