possible bug in packages.debian.org
Hi folks,
I dont know if this is the right place to post about this, but with my
limited english I will try.
Let me know if there is a more adequate place.
I think there is a bug in:
packages.debian.org
I use it (sporadically, I am a slackware guy) for testig some software
(for first impressions, when it is dificult to compile in a i686
machine).
I already wrote about 4 scripts since 2008 to use that site.These
question questions are since ever, but today I wrote this post.
Recently I have tried (quicly) apt-get but is it much hard to set a
RootDir in some point different from real root dir, for not disturbing
my system.
I am very confortable parsing web pages when the web site is OK.
The essence of my all cited scripts is, I seed an element name and the
script downloads and install all the dependences based on the capture
error when trying to run th element (as an human being does).
A practical and recent case as example, I started my fourth script on
April 04 2016, experimenting with WireShark:
RUN=wireshark-gtk
STDOUT: wireshark-gtk: command not found
wget go to (paths ending with the keyword):
https://packages.debian.org/search?suite=sid&arch=any&searchon=contents&keywords=wireshark-gtk
And Get:
Sorry, your search gave no results
You have searched for paths that end with wireshark-gtk in suite
jessie, all sections, and all architectures.
But if wget go (manually) to (Package names only):
https://packages.debian.org/sid/i386/wireshark-gtk/filelist
The Result is:
/usr/bin/wireshark-gtk
/usr/share/applications/wireshark-gtk.desktop
/usr/share/doc/wireshark-gtk/README.Debian
/usr/share/doc/wireshark-gtk/changelog.Debian.gz
/usr/share/doc/wireshark-gtk/changelog.gz
/usr/share/doc/wireshark-gtk/copyright
Another problem is instability about results. The same query in
different momments result in different results (usually result or no
result). For me this is randomic and I cannot give examples at the
momment.
How i get credible results for package contents?
Thanks a lot.
PS: Is the a more logical way to do what I intend?
Reply to: