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

Re: apt 0.6 in experimental

On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 12:40:07PM -0500, Nathaniel W. Turner wrote:

> On Thu, 2004-01-01 at 23:38, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Oh. Also, you're expected to have entries for the md5sum & size
> > of the uncompressed Packages files *even if you only distribute the
> > compressed versions*. That's quite important for debootstrap's caching,
> > and possibly apt's.
> Yes, this is good to point out.  I figured it out a few days ago, but...

apt-ftparchive probably ought to automate this, but for now, it's easiest to
just keep an uncompressed Packages file around.  Then, apt-ftparchive will
add an entry for it to Release automagically.

> > Oh, and your problem is that your paths should be relative to the
> > directory the Release file's in, not the directory dists/ is in. ie:
> ...aha!  The error message makes perfect sense now.  Thank you!
> My repository is now properly signed, and apt 0.6.10 digs it.  =)
> One thing I noticed, though, is that in Release files apt does not
> consider "./nwt/binary-i386/Packages" to be equivalent to
> "nwt/binary-i386/Packages".  It would be nice if either apt normalized
> the "./" out of those paths, or if "apt-ftparchive release ."
> special-cased the "." and output the latter form.  But for now, a simple
> pipe through "sed 's@ \./@ @'" works.

Yes, I think it should strip it off (likewise for any path passed to
apt-ftparchive).  I'll make that change.

 - mdz

Reply to: