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

Bug#30907: apt+dselect refuses to install if a file not existant or corrupt on FTP site



Package: apt
Version: 0.1.9
Severity: normal

I'm not sure if this is actually a bug or not.

I set apt up as my access method in dselect. I updated my availability
list and started a transfer. This went over the course of several
Package list updates. 

It seems that if one file fails, apt won't install the packages which
didn't. Possibly it should ask if an override should be attempted. It
throws the errors, then the screen clears and I'm sent back to the
dselect menu. 

This happened once before and as I recall I fixed it by invoking 
apt-get manually with the -m option.

Example output from dselect's [I]nstall option with apt as the access method:

Updating package status cache...done
Checking system integrity...ok
The following packages will be REMOVED:
  libzvt-dev kterm fbset2 mesag2 xfntbig fvwm2-plus
intlfonts-japanese-big intlfonts-japanese intlfonts-chinese
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  gnome-hello uvscan
The following packages have been kept back
  util-linux mount
27 packages upgraded, 2 newly installed, 9 to remove and 2 not
upgraded.
Need to get 291k/36.0M of archives. After unpacking 8876k will be
freed.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n]
Get ftp://ftp.cdrom.com unstable/main doc-debian [291k]
Error ftp://ftp.cdrom.com unstable/main doc-debian
 550
/pub/linux/debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/doc/doc-debian_1.9.2.deb:
not a plain file.
ERROR
ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/pub/linux/debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/doc/doc-debian_1.9.2.deb
  550
/pub/linux/debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/doc/doc-debian_1.9.2.deb:
not a plain file.


-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
GMD/CS/S d-(++) s: a? C++++ UL++++ P+>+++ L+++(++++) E- W-- N+ o+>++ K w---
!O M-- V-- PS+(+++) PE+(+++) Y++ PGP+++ t+ 5++ X+@ R+++ tv++ b+ DI D--- G++
e++>+++++ h* r y? 
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

Attachment: pgpEc5MXCfKPb.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: