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

Re: apt-get: 93 Protocol error

On Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 08:32:57PM -0600, Mike McNally wrote:
> The full error is:
> Could not create a socket - socket (93 Protocol not supported)

No idea what protocol 93 is (it's not listed in /etc/protocols). FTP
should use the tcp protocol (6).

> apt-get was working fine and then I made the mistake of attempting an
> upgrade which required editing the sources.list.  To get a newer ver
> of gnome or kde or something like that.  Eventually it was obvious 
> that the edited sources.list was not going to work and, as usually,
> returning to the original text did not fix the problem.  I have been 
> able to do an ftp upgrade via dselect but would like to get apt-get
> running.

But what is dselect using to get packages?  CD-ROM?  Based on
sources.list below, did dselect work with apt-get from CD-ROM?

> To that end I went to ftp.debian.org and ftp://non-us.debian.org and 
> found these paths (for goodness sake, this should work) 
> sources.list
> # See sources.list(5) for more information, especialy
> # Remember that you can only use http, ftp or file URIs
> # CDROMs are managed through the apt-cdrom tool.
> deb ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/potato main contrib non-free
> deb ftp://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US/dists/potato/non-US main contrib non-free
> deb ftp://non-us.debian.org/debian-security/dists/potato/updates main contrib non-free
> #deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 r0 _Potato_ - Official i386 Binary-1 (20000814)]/ potato contrib main non-US/contrib non-US/main
> #deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 r0 _Potato_ - Official i386 Binary-2 (20000814)]/ potato contrib main non-US/contrib non-US/main
> What the f is a 93 protocol socket error????????????????????????

Good question?

Maybe you can use http://... instead of ftp.  Does it make a difference?

Do you have some funky /etc/apt/apt.conf ?  A broken apt.conf will cause 
problems.  Still, no idea what the 93 is...

Eric G. Miller <egm2@jps.net>

Reply to: