Re: karmic whois versus lucid mkpasswd
So I changed the filename and the version number in the .deb itself
but I am still getting the same message as below. I read the fine
manual on reprepro and this should be allowed but it doesn't seem to
work. Now what? I would rather not rename the package itself inside
the control file just for this purpose but is that how it works? -- IV
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Ignacio Valdes <ivaldes@hal-pc.org> wrote:
> I tried doing the adding ~karmic and ~lucid to the filename with the
> control contents changed to whois and mkpasswd respectively but I am
> getting this after adding the ~lucid astronaut-common file:
>
> [root@labtest1 deb]# reprepro includedeb karmic karmic/*.deb
> ERROR: 'karmic/astronaut-common-0.9-5~karmic1.i686.deb' cannot be
> included as 'pool/main/a/astronaut-common/astronaut-co
> mmon_0.9-5_all.deb'.
> Already existing files can only be included again, if they are the
> same, but:
> md5 expected: f44f7114b4e0403cc358d0f52d58aca3, got:
> 9c1d8ac685dd073835f59c7a4cdf6941
> sha1 expected: 3bc697d12245673e422753ce9e7f0bff30ff0822, got:
> 76af04730473356391b2ebf9ee4b941abc7cffcc
> sha256 expected:
> 0cb5b5797d37baa3972bb5dd535e03e340537318bc5c024383e62287b3436af9, got:
> 8edc268c46f53e30eb1919dbbbc08047
> 91c8b3dc94526b93384869e26e3668f1
> size expected: 239098, got: 238974
> There have been errors!
>
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Ignacio Valdes <ivaldes@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>> Hi, The Astronaut package has a dependency on the mkpasswd command
>> which was in the whois package in Karmic and is now in the mkpasswd
>> package in Lucid. How does one make this work for apt-get using
>> reprepro pool? When I reprepro includedeb karmic astronaut-common.deb
>> with the whois package dependency in control rather than the
>> makepasswd dependeny it flags it as not being allowed to the pool
>> because it isn't the same file. Hmmmm. I would rather have one
>> astronaut-common that covers both dependencies for both distros but I
>> do not know how as they seem to be mutually exclusive.
>>
>> -- IV
>>
>
Reply to: