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

Re: dselect and lprng...



On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Bob Clark wrote:

> Scott,
> 
> The message "Nothing to get" simply means that dselect found the package
> already on your system.  Go ahead and install and it should work.  Then
> you'll be give the option to delete the package file.
> 
> --Bob

Oddly enough, I have never looked at lprng before, so there is no way it 
found it on my system.  When I complete the install process, it still 
says I want to install it, but that it isn't installed.  It is almost as 
if dselect does not recognize that I want to install the package, so it 
does not hunt for it on the FTP site.

Scott




> 
> Scott Stanley wrote:
> > 
> > I was just trying to download and install the lprng package from stable
> > using dselect 1.4.0.7 with the ftp Access method.  Basically, I went into
> > Select, and selected the package lprng (I got the dependencies window
> > saying lprng recommended magicfilter, but I did not select magicfilter).
> > 
> > The select menu item for lprng looks like;
> > 
> >   _* Opt net      lprng       <none>    2.4.2-1   lpr/lpd printer spooling
> > 
> > When I exit (pressing Enter) and Install, I get
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >    Processing status file...
> > 
> >    Processing Package files...
> >     stable...
> >     contrib...
> >     non-free...
> > 
> >    Constructing list of files to get...
> > 
> >    Approximate total space required: 0k
> >    Available space in ../../../../../dosc/Debian/1.2: 235632k
> >    Nothing to get.
> >    Processing downloaded files...(for corrupt/old/partial)
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Nothing to get???  If I go back into the Select option after this aborted
> > attempt, it still says I want to install lprng, just like is shown
> > above.  Seems like I must be doing something silly, I just can't figure
> > out what....
> > 
> > Any help is appreciated.
> > 
> > Scott
> 


Reply to: