On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 14:44:51 +0100, Anton Piatek wrote:
> 2008/6/21 Florian Kulzer :
> > On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 13:04:54 +0100, Anton Piatek wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> Does anyone know why apt-get crashes when updating?
> >>
> >> Hit http://security.debian.org lenny/updates/main Sources
> >> Hit http://security.debian.org lenny/updates/contrib Sources
> >> Hit http://security.debian.org lenny/updates/non-free Sources
> >> Fetched 9B in 2s (4B/s)
> >> Segmentation faultsts... 60%
> >>
> >> Removing a deb source solves the problem (5 sources works, 6 fails).
> >> I have had this happen before, with sarge i think, and upgrading apt
> >> to a newer level solved it, however uprading apt now will require
> >> upgrading libperl
> >> My apt is currently at version 0.7.6 on a mixed lenny/sid system (with
> >> some packages from etch, unison in particular)
> >
> > I think you are not doing yourself any favors by running your system
> > like that.
>
> Unfortunately unison is designed such that both client and server
> versions must match, so as my servers are etch I need the etch version
> on my laptop.
I see. As far as I can tell, you can install the Etch version of unison
on a current Sid system.
> I need software from Lenny/Sid on my laptop. I suppose I could move to
> complete Sid however I do not want to have to worry about the extra
> effort of all the extra updates that I would have to install on Sid
> rather than Lenny.
It seems that I may have misunderstood what you meant with "mixed
lenny/sid" system. In any case, the differences are not that great:
Right now, 94% of the packages in Sid are also available in Lenny, and
88% of these shared packages are at the same version in both
repositories.
If you need some of those 6% exclusive-to-Sid packages (or the newest
versions of other packages) then I think it is less of a hassle to move
to Sid completely and be done with it (provided that you use
apt-listbugs, apt-listchanges and keep at least one additional kernel
image around).
I hope this explains my previous remark a bit better.
[...]
> It is indeed solved by increasing the apt-cache limit. There does
> appear to be a bugreport open, though I doubt I can add much to it
> without moving apt up to the unstable level.
> Aptitude has the same problem, though is more explicit about why.
>
> It seems that once I run apt with a 20mb limit the problem goes away,
> so presumably apt is happy keeping the cache at a larger size once it
> gets that big.
> I will add the option to my config anyway, so hopefully will not see this again.
>
> Is it worth suggesting that the default cache size be increased?
I suspect that the default cache limit is set such that it is
appropriate for a standard sources.list with only "stable" in it.
--
Regards, | http://users.icfo.es/Florian.Kulzer
Florian |