Question/comment re:incoming.debian.org/REPORT
REPORT shows as of now, stamped 03-Jan-2001 14:58, the following:
1.
dpkg_1.8.0_i386.changes
BYHAND
dpkg-1.8.0.tar.gz byhand
dpkg_1.8.0_i386.deb
to pool/main/d/dpkg/dpkg_1.8.0_i386.deb
The above says to me I should be able to find that file at that
location. However, a search of ftp.debian.org, http.us.debian.org,
ftp.twtelecom.net (closer mirror) at that location shows:
257 "/pub/mirrors/debian/pool/main/d/dpkg" is current directory.
ftp> ls
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 851612 Dec 11 00:00
dpkg_1.7.2_sparc.deb
Would this be due to BYHAND, or possibly something with the package
pools? the dpkg_1.8.0...deb files still appear in incoming regardless
of the REPORT file. If it's a problem I hope I have alerted the correct
people, if not sorry for your time.
2.
gcc-2.97_2.97-001230_i386.changes
NEW to experimental
I know, I know it's experimental and the above is unstable neither are
expected/suppose/guarnteed to work. However, I think this might
actually be worth noting. The above related debs still appear in
incoming as well and the appropriate directory and the same mirrors as
above shows:
257 "/pub/mirrors/debian/project/experimental" is current directory.
ftp> ls Packages*
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 127551 Dec 7 20:01 Packages
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 27252 Dec 7 20:01 Packages.gz
ftp> ls gcc*
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 30660 Dec 5 19:54
gcc-base-ss_2.97-0.001202_all.deb
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 463352 Dec 5 19:54
gcc-doc-ss_2.97-0.001202_all.deb
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 407502 Dec 5 19:54
gcc-snapshot_20001202-0.001202.diff.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 1278 Dec 5 19:54
gcc-snapshot_20001202-0.001202.dsc
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 12499345 Dec 5 19:54
gcc-snapshot_20001202.orig.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 1611204 Dec 6 19:53
gcc-ss_2.97-0.001202_alpha.deb
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 1416836 Dec 5 19:54
gcc-ss_2.97-0.001202_i386.deb
-rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 1297818 Oct 25 18:52
gcc-ss_2.97-0.1_sparc.deb
So, the REPORT says it is NEW to experimental and indicates it has been
installed but it is not located there nor have the Packages files been
regenerated since Dec 7. Again, it looked like someone might not be
aware of this. If it's a non-issue, I apologize for taking your time.
Thanks
Gordon Sadler
Reply to: