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

Re: apt-get install synaptic / sources.list



somethin2cool@yahoo.com wrote:
I added the lines:

Deb cdrom: [Debian GNU/Linux 4.0r0 _Etch_ -Official i386 DVD Binary-1 20070407-11:40]/ etch contrib main Deb cdrom: [Debian GNU/Linux 4.0r0 _Etch_ -Official i386 DVD Binary-2 20070407-11:40]/ etch contrib main Deb cdrom: [Debian GNU/Linux 4.0r0 _Etch_ -Official i386 DVD Binary-3 20070407-11:40]/ etch contrib main

(I'm using pen and paper to copy, so there may be a tiny syntax error in there)

Then I went:

Su
Apt-get install synaptic
And it came up with errors that the repositories do not exist. The DVD Binary-1 was mounted.

My other thread today "XFCE (no gnome) = CDROM badness" may be the only reason, but it may not be. (and I have no net either, so I have to get one working in order to do anything).



Well things are going well now. I have ethernet internet (so i have to sit by the router) and can install from DVD.

But lots of things are still a royal pain when it comes to installing.

It seems there are no perfect methods, but that apt works perfectly IF you have all the repositories in there (although sucks at uninstalling). Many many things I want are not in repositories for some reason, so I have added the non-free repository which seems to have added to total of 0 packages.

I'd like to add Sarge repos because Amaya isn't in the Etch ones, the .deb moans about dependencies and synaptic, despite knowing what they all are, has no option to just get them all (ha!).

So can anyone tell me how to add a Sarge repo, and also the Etch one. Yes they ought to be set up already but they aren't and the information is not on any link in Google's first 5 pages. I have looked of debian man, which tells me how to make one from scratch (which is awesome, but not what i want this month), and it either doesn't say what the repository addresses are or it is hidden really really well. Surely the repository addresses should be published on the website, but no.

Apparently this is to obvious to bother writing anywhere.




Reply to: