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

downloading debian: begging for jigdo-lite sarge with src pkgs included

Package: downloading debian
Severity: wishlist

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.7-k7
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (ignored: LC_ALL set to C)


I'm really begging for the makers of sarge weekly release to include the
idea that users of these weekly CDs NEED THE SOURCE CODE for the
applications just like any other linux distribution user does.

Like many, I download Debian/testing using jigdo-lite (because woody is too
out of date as a general X desktop box).

However, by advice of the debian web site I used jigdo-lite and
downloaded a weekly snapshot of sarge.  Only after installing it did I
realize that the release has no access (no package descriptions et al)
for getting the source it was made with.  The source [may still be] on
the debian ftp site ...

... but there is no practical way to use source packages having
installed from a jigdo-lite weekly sarge snapshot; since this doesn't
have the package files.

And I know from experience that if you place Pakcage files in the
distribution directory the files have to be actually there!  Else apt
chokes.  Apt doesn't have an ability for some Package files to point to
difference apt sources (cdrom, ftp), that is.


Anyway, I think its a prettty reasonable request that the people making
the snapshot at least leave directions for those who wan't the source
packages as well; after all, linux should come with the source if one
wishes to have it; in the manner of the usual packing system.

Personally: I'm stuck.  I'm thinking of downloading all of sarge (including
source), PINing it in apt/preferences, and just forget having it available on
cdrom: since that is apparently where my problems started.  Wanting sarge on
cdrom.  And I think it's kinda silly it's so hard.  But I understand why it is

Have Fun!

	John D. Hendrickson


Reply to: