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

Re: apt stuck at "Reading database"

Quoting Brian (ad44@cityscape.co.uk):
> On Mon 13 Apr 2015 at 08:42:45 -0400, Jape Person wrote:
> > >I'd even argue that the deb-src entries are not necessary for the majority of
> > >Debian users.
> > 
> > IIRC apt-listbugs or apt-listchanges (or both) don't work without
> > the deb-src entries in /etc/apt/sources.list. I think these are
> > tools that Debian users should be encouraged to use. At the least
> > they provide a bit of a heads-up to the unwary during installations
> > and upgrades.
> You would have to provide a source for the information in your first
> sentence. One of my machines has a single line in sources.list and it
> doesn't begin "deb-src".

So are you saying that the apt-listbugs and apt-listchanges tools work
for you on that machine? I'm dubious of the truth of needing deb-src
entries for them to work, but I have no evidence to the contrary bcause
I haven't removed my deb-src lines. (I also read their control files
and man pages, but it's not obvious how the former would express such
a dependency, and grep 'src' gives no matches in the latter.)

> I agree apt-listbugs and apt-listchanges are
> very useful for any user but the bug information really needs to be
> checked with the BTS to get the full benefit of apt-listbugs.

Yes, I thought it did that. (Or is there a fallback if the network
has gone down?)

> > But I do get your point.
> It is quite a good one. If you never re-build a deb package the line
> is redundant.

Perhaps I should have trimmed the posting of my AFAICT standard Debian
/etc/apt/sources.list considering the debate it's engendered.
I would have been better pleased if someone were to firm up the
options available if my suggestions didn't fix the problem. I only
posted at all because this guy had been sitting on a non-functioning
machine for at least 5 days by (my) Sunday morning.


Reply to: