Re: deity-digest Digest V101 #10
unsubscribe
deity-digest-request@lists.debian.org wrote:
> Subject:
>
> deity-digest Digest Volume 101 : Issue 10
>
> Today's Topics:
> RE: apt-get update failing [ Dean.Carpenter@pharma.com ]
> Re: Bug#32920: apt: wish: keep /var/ [ Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca> ]
> Re: Bug#32918: apt: misleading sourc [ Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca> ]
> Re: ftp method missing from apt_0.3 [ Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca> ]
> Re: No dependancy for apt-pkg in gno [ Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca> ]
> Bug#32918: marked as done (apt: misl [ owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug T ]
> Bug#32920: marked as done (apt: wish [ owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug T ]
> libapt-pkg shlib detection error [ Mitch Blevins <mblevin@debian.org> ]
> RE: apt-get update failing [ Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca> ]
> bug report [ Stephen Davies <chalky@null.net> ]
> Bug#32972: Apt gives scaring warning [ Alexander Shumakovitch <shurik@math ]
> Re: bug report [ Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca> ]
> Re: Bug#32972: Apt gives scaring war [ Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca> ]
> Bug#32972: marked as done (Apt gives [ owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug T ]
> Bug#33006: "Offline-queue" access me [ Florian Laws <florian@void.s.bawue. ]
> Bug#32883: apt --no-act could be mor [ James Troup <james@nocrew.org> ]
> Re: Bug#32883: apt --no-act could be [ Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca> ]
> Re: Bug#33006: "Offline-queue" acces [ Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca> ]
> RE: apt-get update failing [ Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org> ]
> RE: apt-get update failing [ Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca> ]
> Bug#33032: apt: apt does not count p [ Cesar.Barros@web4u.com.br ]
> Re: Bug#33032: apt: apt does not cou [ Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca> ]
> Bug#33049: Apt could handle half-way [ Remco Blaakmeer <remco-blaakmeer@qu ]
> Re: Bug#33049: Apt could handle half [ Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca> ]
> Bug#33049: marked as done (Apt could [ owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug T ]
> Re: Bug#33049: Apt could handle half [ Remco Blaakmeer <remco-blaakmeer@qu ]
> gnome-apt [ thomas.r.shemanske@dartmouth.edu ]
> Re: gnome-apt [ Havoc Pennington <hp@Mcs.Net> ]
> Re: gnome-apt [ Mitch Blevins <mblevin@mindspring.c ]
> Re: gnome-apt [ Lalo Martins <lalo@webcom.com> ]
> Re: gnome-apt [ Mitch Blevins <mblevin@mindspring.c ]
> Processed: [ owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug T ]
> bug? [ Jozsa Kristof <dynax@kami.terra.vei ]
> Bug#33291: When a package is marked [ Remco Blaakmeer <remco-blaakmeer@qu ]
> "Offline" apt [ Florian Laws <florian@void.s.bawue. ]
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: RE: apt-get update failing
> Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 09:25:42 -0500
> From: Dean.Carpenter@pharma.com
> To: jgg@ualberta.ca
> CC: debian-user@lists.debian.org, deity@lists.debian.org
>
> Yup. I've removed the Packages.gz files and had mirror reget them several
> times. I also tried right from the ftp site ...
>
> # cat /etc/apt/sources.list
>
> deb http://ftp1.us.debian.org/debian frozen main contrib non-free
> deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US unstable/binary-i386/
>
> # deb file:/amnt/mirrors/debian frozen main contrib non-free
> # deb file:/amnt/mirrors/debian/debian-non-US unstable non-US
> # deb file:/amnt/mirrors/debian project/experimental/
> fsmail:~#
> fsmail:~#
> fsmail:~# apt-get update
> Get http://ftp1.us.debian.org frozen/contrib Packages
> Get http://non-us.debian.org unstable/binary-i386/ Packages
> Get http://ftp1.us.debian.org frozen/main Packages
> Get http://ftp1.us.debian.org frozen/non-free Packages
> Fetched 2040k in 3s (596k/s)
> Updating package file cache...
> E: Line 3 in package file
> /var/state/apt/lists/ftp1.us.debian.org_debian_dists_frozen_main_binary-i386
> _Packages is too long.(2)
> fsmail:~#
>
> --
> Dean Carpenter deano@areyes.com
> 94 TT :) Dean.Carpenter@pharma.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Gunthorpe [mailto:jgg@ualberta.ca]
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 1999 7:45 PM
> To: Carpenter, Dean
> Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org; deity@lists.debian.org
> Subject: RE: apt-get update failing
>
> On Thu, 4 Feb 1999 Dean.Carpenter@pharma.com wrote:
>
> > Thanks to Nils and Jason for the *really* fast replies ...
> >
> > Just upgraded to apt_0.1.10 from potato - same problem. Looks like there
> > are a few others out there seeing the same thing.
>
> master{root}~#apt-get update
> Get file:/debian/debian/ dists/proposed-updates/ Packages
> Get file:/debian/debian/ slink/contrib Packages
> Get file:/debian/debian/ slink/main Packages
> Get http://nonus.debian.org unstable/non-US Packages
> Get file:/debian/debian/ slink/non-free Packages
> Get file:/debian/debian/ stable/contrib Packages
>
> Get file:/debian/debian/ stable/main Packages
>
> Get file:/debian/debian/ stable/non-free Packages
>
> Fetched 41.3k in 0s (50.1k/s)
>
> Updating package file cache...done
> Updating package status cache...done
> Checking system integrity...ok
> master{root}~#apt-get | head --lines 1
> apt 0.1.5 for i386 compiled on Jul 23 1998 22:05:22
>
> Hmm.. Are you sure you package files are not corrupted?
>
> Jason
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Bug#32920: apt: wish: keep /var/state/apt/lists/* files compressed
> Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 13:53:13 -0700 (MST)
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca>
> To: debian@Tonelli.sns.it, 32920-done@bugs.debian.org
> CC: APT Development Team <deity@lists.debian.org>
>
> On Fri, 5 Feb 1999 debian@Tonelli.sns.it wrote:
>
> > those files are big (some megabytes)
> > and when (rarely) they are used to recontruct the caches and the
> > file "available" for dpkg, they could be gunzipped on the fly,
> > without much CPU cost!
>
> Sorry but no. The APT program requires random access to the package lists
> durning several stages of it's operation. The Binary cache serves only as
> an overview to the exact positions of the data it needs.
>
> Jason
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Bug#32918: apt: misleading sources.list man page, on "preferred sources"
> Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 13:55:49 -0700 (MST)
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca>
> To: A Mennucc1 <sysman@Tonelli.sns.it>, 32918-done@bugs.debian.org
> CC: APT Development Team <deity@lists.debian.org>
>
> On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, A Mennucc1 wrote:
>
> > the man page says:
> >
> > It is important to list sources in order of preference,
> > with the most preferred source listed first. Typically
> > this will result in sorting by speed from fastest to slow
> > est (CD-ROM followed by hosts on a local network, followed
> > by distant Internet hosts, for example).
> >
> > Now, I would like to do what 22551@bugs.debian.org says
> > (at least, this is what I understand from 22551):
>
> Yes this is a feature that has been request but it will not be implemented
> through sources.list ordering. The ordering of the source list is to allow
> exactly the functionality you quoted from the man page, this to to allow a
> local mirror to be preferenced over an remote mirror. With APTv3's source
> fail-over this becomes even more important.
>
> I will close this bug as 22551 is already basically identical.
>
> Jason
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: ftp method missing from apt_0.3
> Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 13:56:44 -0700 (MST)
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca>
> To: debian@pteron.demon.co.uk
> CC: Deity Creation Team <deity@lists.debian.org>
>
> On Fri, 5 Feb 1999 debian@pteron.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> > The version of apt in
> >
> > http://www.debian.org/~mblevin/gnome-apt/apt_0.3.0_i386.deb
> >
> > doesn't have the ftp method!
>
> Yes, it hasn't been written, try using HTTP there are many http enabled
> mirrors you can use. See http://www.debian.org/~jgg/Mirrors
>
> Jason
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: No dependancy for apt-pkg in gnome-apt
> Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 13:57:22 -0700 (MST)
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca>
> To: debian@pteron.demon.co.uk
> CC: apt@packages.debian.org, deity@lists.debian.org
>
> On Fri, 5 Feb 1999 debian@pteron.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> > Depends: apt (>= 0.3.0), gdk-imlib1, libart2 (>= 0.99.4-1), libc6,
> > libesd0, libglib1.1.13 (>= 1.1.13
> > -1), libgnome31 (>= 0.99.4-1), libgtk1.1.13 (>= 1.1.13-1), libstdc++2.9,
> > libzvt2 (>= 0.99.4-1), xlib
> > 6g (>= 3.3-5), zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.3)
> >
> > Shouldn't apt-pkg be in there?
>
> No, apt-pkg is included in apt.
>
> Jason
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Bug#32918: marked as done (apt: misleading sources.list man page, on "preferred sources")
> Date: Fri, 5 Feb 99 15:03 CST
> From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System)
> To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca>
> CC: APT Development Team <deity@lists.debian.org>
>
> Your message dated Fri, 5 Feb 1999 13:55:49 -0700 (MST)
> with message-id <Pine.LNX.3.96.990205135330.11509B-100000@wakko>
> and subject line Bug#32918: apt: misleading sources.list man page, on "preferred sources"
> has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
>
> This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
> If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
> bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
>
> (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I'm
> talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
> somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
>
> Ian Jackson
> (administrator, Debian bugs database)
>
> Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Feb 1999 09:42:39 +0000
> Received: (qmail 6741 invoked from network); 5 Feb 1999 09:42:36 -0000
> Received: from tonelli.sns.it (root@192.84.155.215)
> by master.debian.org with SMTP; 5 Feb 1999 09:42:36 -0000
> Received: by Tonelli.sns.it
> id m108hmO-000019C
> (Debian Smail-3.2.0.101 1997-Dec-17 #2); Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:42:28 +0100 (CET)
> Message-Id: <m108hmO-000019C@Tonelli.sns.it>
> Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:42:28 +0100 (CET)
> From: A Mennucc1 <sysman@Tonelli.sns.it>
> Subject: apt: misleading sources.list man page, on "preferred sources"
> To: submit@bugs.debian.org
> Bcc:
> X-Mailer: bug 3.1.5
>
> Package: apt
> Version: 0.1.10
>
> hi
>
> the man page says:
>
> It is important to list sources in order of preference,
> with the most preferred source listed first. Typically
> this will result in sorting by speed from fastest to slow
> est (CD-ROM followed by hosts on a local network, followed
> by distant Internet hosts, for example).
>
> Now, I would like to do what 22551@bugs.debian.org says
> (at least, this is what I understand from 22551):
>
> > It would be very nice if there was some way that I can arrange my
> > /etc/apt/sources.list so that it picks up a file from a distribution
> > if and only if that file does not exist in the other distributions.
>
> More precisely, I would like that if
> there is a stable version of a package
> and there is a unstable (or, frozen) version of a package,
> then the stable version of the package be preferred;
> so when I read "the most preferred source listed first"
> I built the sources.list that you see below;
> instead, apt-get now wants to upgrade all and every package that
> I have!
>
> thanks
>
> a.m.
>
> -- System Information
> Debian Release: 2.0
> Kernel Version: Linux Tonelli 2.0.34 #2 Thu Jul 9 10:57:48 EST 1998 i586 unknown
>
> Versions of the packages apt depends on:
> ii libc6 2.0.7.19981211 GNU Libc: shared libraries
> ii libstdc++2.9 2.91.60-4 The GNU stdc++ library (egcs version)
>
> --- Begin /etc/apt/sources.list (modified conffile)
> deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free
> deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US stable non-US
> deb http://sunsite.org.uk/packages/debian dists/proposed-updates/
> deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian frozen main contrib non-free
>
> --- End /etc/apt/sources.list
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Bug#32920: marked as done (apt: wish: keep /var/state/apt/lists/* files compressed)
> Date: Fri, 5 Feb 99 15:03 CST
> From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System)
> To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca>
> CC: APT Development Team <deity@lists.debian.org>
>
> Your message dated Fri, 5 Feb 1999 13:53:13 -0700 (MST)
> with message-id <Pine.LNX.3.96.990205135155.11509A-100000@wakko>
> and subject line Bug#32920: apt: wish: keep /var/state/apt/lists/* files compressed
> has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
>
> This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
> If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
> bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
>
> (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I'm
> talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
> somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
>
> Ian Jackson
> (administrator, Debian bugs database)
>
> Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Feb 1999 09:55:15 +0000
> Received: (qmail 8391 invoked from network); 5 Feb 1999 09:55:12 -0000
> Received: from tonelli.sns.it (root@192.84.155.215)
> by master.debian.org with SMTP; 5 Feb 1999 09:55:12 -0000
> Received: by Tonelli.sns.it
> id m108hyd-000019C
> (Debian Smail-3.2.0.101 1997-Dec-17 #2); Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:55:07 +0100 (CET)
> Message-Id: <m108hyd-000019C@Tonelli.sns.it>
> Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 10:55:07 +0100 (CET)
> From: debian@Tonelli.sns.it
> Subject: apt: wish: keep /var/state/apt/lists/* files compressed
> To: submit@bugs.debian.org
> Bcc:
> X-Mailer: bug 3.1.5
>
> Package: apt
> Version: 0.1.10
>
> hi
>
> those files are big (some megabytes)
> and when (rarely) they are used to recontruct the caches and the
> file "available" for dpkg, they could be gunzipped on the fly,
> without much CPU cost!
>
> thanks
>
> a.
>
> -- System Information
> Debian Release: 2.0
> Kernel Version: Linux Tonelli 2.0.34 #2 Thu Jul 9 10:57:48 EST 1998 i586 unknown
>
> Versions of the packages apt depends on:
> ii libc6 2.0.7.19981211 GNU Libc: shared libraries
> ii libstdc++2.9 2.91.60-4 The GNU stdc++ library (egcs version)
>
> --- Begin /etc/apt/sources.list (modified conffile)
> deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free
> deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US stable non-US
> deb http://sunsite.org.uk/packages/debian dists/proposed-updates/
> deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian frozen main contrib non-free
>
> --- End /etc/apt/sources.list
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: libapt-pkg shlib detection error
> Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 18:19:18 -0500
> From: Mitch Blevins <mblevin@debian.org>
> To: apt@packages.debian.org
>
> I have had to manually add the dependency to apt 0.3.0 to
> gnome apt because of the following:
>
> [bash]$ dpkg-shlibdeps `which gnome-apt`
> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: unable to find dependency information for shared library libapt-pkg (soname 2.0, path /usr/lib/libapt-pkg.so.2.0, dependency field Depends)
>
> Methinks it has something to do with this:
>
> [bash]$ cat /var/lib/dpkg/info/apt.shlibs
> libapt-pkg 2 apt
>
> [bash]$ ldd `which gnome-apt` |grep libapt-pkg
> libapt-pkg.so.2.0 => /usr/lib/libapt-pkg.so.2.0 (0x4037c000)
>
> The way I understand dpkg-shlibdeps, it is looking for a line like:
>
> libapt-pkg 2.0 <packagename>
>
> in /var/lib/dpkg/info/*.shlibs, and is not finding it.
> Is this an apt bug?
>
> -Mitch
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: RE: apt-get update failing
> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 01:01:30 -0700 (MST)
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca>
> To: Dean.Carpenter@pharma.com
> CC: debian-user@lists.debian.org, deity@lists.debian.org
>
> On Fri, 5 Feb 1999 Dean.Carpenter@pharma.com wrote:
>
> > Yup. I've removed the Packages.gz files and had mirror reget them several
> > times. I also tried right from the ftp site ...
>
> Are you -sure- you have the right version?
>
> va{root}/usr/debian/home/jgg#cat /etc/apt/sources.list
> deb http://ftp1.us.debian.org/debian frozen main contrib non-free
> deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US unstable/binary-i386/
> va{root}/usr/debian/home/jgg#apt-get update
> Get http://ftp1.us.debian.org frozen/contrib Packages
> Get http://non-us.debian.org unstable/binary-i386/ Packages
> Get http://ftp1.us.debian.org frozen/main Packages
> Get http://ftp1.us.debian.org frozen/non-free Packages
> Fetched 594k in 2s (257k/s)
> Updating package file cache...done
> Updating package status cache...done
> Checking system integrity...ok
> va{root}/usr/debian/home/jgg#apt-get | head --lines=1
> apt 0.1.9 for i386 compiled on Nov 5 1998 17:50:04
>
> va{root}/usr/debian/home/jgg#md5sum /var/state/apt/lists/*
> 67acada608ee6c428cd757a2056c4626
> /var/state/apt/lists/ftp1.us.debian.org_debian_dists_frozen_contrib_binary-i386_Packages
> 8a924add52d804ad2efa855e5a090c28
> /var/state/apt/lists/ftp1.us.debian.org_debian_dists_frozen_main_binary-i386_Packages
> c72a3c8be6caf7b303c1452cdb41c8ae
> /var/state/apt/lists/ftp1.us.debian.org_debian_dists_frozen_non-free_binary-i386_Packages
> ce7259fbe64a3d14c57e78c4c5987c0b
> /var/state/apt/lists/non-us.debian.org_debian-non-US_unstable_binary-i386_Packages
>
> Jason
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: bug report
> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 20:16:23 +1100 (EST)
> From: Stephen Davies <chalky@null.net>
> To: apt@packages.debian.org
>
> Hi there.. I ran into this little buglet:
>
> ---8<------------------------------------------------------8<---
> root@Molten:/var/lib/dpkg/info# apt-get install wmakerconf
> Reading Package Lists... Done
> Building Dependency Tree... Done
> The following extra packages will be installed:
> wmakerconf-data
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
> wmakerconf wmakerconf-data
> 0 packages upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove and 4 not upgraded.
> 35054,200900
> How odd.. The sizes didn't match, email apt@packages.debian.org
> Need to get 35.1k of archives. After unpacking 570k will be used.
> E: The method driver /usr/lib/apt/methods/ftp could not be found.
> root@Molten:/var/lib/dpkg/info#
> ---8<------------------------------------------------------8<---
>
> Is there any particular reason why the ftp method doesn't exist? I kinda
> miss it :/
>
> Thanks
>
> //-------=[ Chalky (Stephen Davies) -- Chalky@null.net ]=-------\\
> //------=[ Powered by Linux -- "Escape the Gates of Hell" ]=------\\
> //--=[ PlethoraMUD Implementor - telnet: pleth.eisa.net.au:4000 ]=--\\
> //--=[ Programmer(C/C++/Java) and 2nd Year CSE/CS Student at RMIT ]=--\\
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Bug#32972: Apt gives scaring warning while removing required but obsolete packages
> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 12:17:54 +0100
> From: Alexander Shumakovitch <shurik@math.unibas.ch>
> To: submit@bugs.debian.org
>
> Package: apt
> Version: 0.1.9
>
> During my upgrade from hamm to slink using dselect-apt combination, I've got
> the following message:
> WARNING: The following essential packages will be removed
> This should NOT be done unless you know exactly what you are doing!
> slang0.99.38
>
> Although I was completely sure that slang0.99.38 is not in the distribution
> anymore, that warning forced me to press Ctrl-C, go to Select and to
> double-check that it's indeed obsolete. I believe some people could even
> abandon the installation after this. I guess, apt shouldn't warn about any
> packages being removed if they are "obsolete" (that said not in the
> distribution).
>
> Thanks!
>
> --- Shurik.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: bug report
> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 13:25:00 -0700 (MST)
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca>
> To: Stephen Davies <chalky@null.net>
> CC: Deity Creation Team <deity@lists.debian.org>
>
> On Sat, 6 Feb 1999, Stephen Davies wrote:
>
> > Hi there.. I ran into this little buglet:
> >
> > ---8<------------------------------------------------------8<---
> > root@Molten:/var/lib/dpkg/info# apt-get install wmakerconf
> > Reading Package Lists... Done
> > Building Dependency Tree... Done
> > The following extra packages will be installed:
> > wmakerconf-data
> > The following NEW packages will be installed:
> > wmakerconf wmakerconf-data
> > 0 packages upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove and 4 not upgraded.
> > 35054,200900
> > How odd.. The sizes didn't match, email apt@packages.debian.org
>
> This I am pretty sure is caused by the missing FTP method, I should look
> into it.
>
> > Is there any particular reason why the ftp method doesn't exist? I kinda
> > miss it :/
>
> Yes, the new version has not been completed yet.
>
> Jason
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Bug#32972: Apt gives scaring warning while removing required but obsolete packages
> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 13:28:49 -0700 (MST)
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca>
> To: Alexander Shumakovitch <shurik@math.unibas.ch>, 32972-done@bugs.debian.org
> CC: APT Development Team <deity@lists.debian.org>
>
> On Sat, 6 Feb 1999, Alexander Shumakovitch wrote:
>
> > During my upgrade from hamm to slink using dselect-apt combination, I've got
> > the following message:
> > WARNING: The following essential packages will be removed
> > This should NOT be done unless you know exactly what you are doing!
> > slang0.99.38
> >
> > Although I was completely sure that slang0.99.38 is not in the distribution
> > anymore, that warning forced me to press Ctrl-C, go to Select and to
> > double-check that it's indeed obsolete. I believe some people could even
> > abandon the installation after this. I guess, apt shouldn't warn about any
> > packages being removed if they are "obsolete" (that said not in the
> > distribution).
>
> Sorry but no. APT is giving this warning not because slang itself is
> essential but because something essential depends on it. The new APTv3 has
> a more clearer indication of this.
>
> What can happen is you can get the installation into a state where it is
> forced to disable an essential package while it fiddles witht he slang*
> packages and this can badly damage your installation!
>
> Also, there is no real way to determine truely obsolete packages so this
> warning will remain forever and the release notes will have to cover which
> things can be removed safely -AFTER- everything has been upgraded.
>
> Never, EVER -EVER- let that warning go by while it is doing other things,
> that is seriously dangerous!
>
> Jason
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Bug#32972: marked as done (Apt gives scaring warning while removing required but obsolete packages)
> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 99 14:33 CST
> From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System)
> To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca>
> CC: APT Development Team <deity@lists.debian.org>
>
> Your message dated Sat, 6 Feb 1999 13:28:49 -0700 (MST)
> with message-id <Pine.LNX.3.96.990206132531.13347K-100000@wakko>
> and subject line Bug#32972: Apt gives scaring warning while removing required but obsolete packages
> has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
>
> This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
> If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
> bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
>
> (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I'm
> talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
> somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
>
> Ian Jackson
> (administrator, Debian bugs database)
>
> Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 6 Feb 1999 11:17:50 +0000
> Received: (qmail 18704 invoked from network); 6 Feb 1999 11:17:50 -0000
> Received: from daisy.math.unibas.ch (131.152.41.1)
> by master.debian.org with SMTP; 6 Feb 1999 11:17:50 -0000
> Received: by daisy.math.unibas.ch (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
> id MAA12674; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 12:17:55 +0100
> Message-ID: <19990206121754.14705@daisy.unibas.ch>
> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 12:17:54 +0100
> From: Alexander Shumakovitch <shurik@math.unibas.ch>
> To: submit@bugs.debian.org
> Subject: Apt gives scaring warning while removing required but obsolete packages
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1
>
> Package: apt
> Version: 0.1.9
>
> During my upgrade from hamm to slink using dselect-apt combination, I've got
> the following message:
> WARNING: The following essential packages will be removed
> This should NOT be done unless you know exactly what you are doing!
> slang0.99.38
>
> Although I was completely sure that slang0.99.38 is not in the distribution
> anymore, that warning forced me to press Ctrl-C, go to Select and to
> double-check that it's indeed obsolete. I believe some people could even
> abandon the installation after this. I guess, apt shouldn't warn about any
> packages being removed if they are "obsolete" (that said not in the
> distribution).
>
> Thanks!
>
> --- Shurik.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Bug#33006: "Offline-queue" access method for apt
> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 00:25:43 +0100
> From: Florian Laws <florian@void.s.bawue.de>
> To: submit@bugs.debian.org
>
> Package: apt
> Version: 0.3.0
> Severity: wishlist
>
> It would be nice if apt had a special method for offline use.
> It should spool all requests for new packages into a file
> that could be taken to an other machine with a good internet
> connection by removable media.
> On this machine there should be a script or a program (perhaps
> even for Win32) that downloads all requested packages and
> stores them back on the removable media.
> Now, back on the first PC, all packages can be installed.
>
> A less preferred possibility would be an apt-get command line
> used in conjuction with -s for printing the complete URLs for
> packages to download that can be piped into a file and
> processed with wget myself.
>
> This methods would be a great help for users with a slow and
> expensive net internet connection or no net connection at all.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Florian Laws
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Bug#32883: apt --no-act could be more helpful (print download size)
> Date: 07 Feb 1999 01:00:06 +0000
> From: James Troup <james@nocrew.org>
> To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca>, 32883@bugs.debian.org
>
> Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca> writes:
>
> > severity 32883 fixed
> > done
>
> Fixed? Eh? Colour me a biased anti-apt fan, but since when does
> fixing stuff in CVS, which is not available as a Debian package count
> as fixed? :(
>
> --
> James
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Bug#32883: apt --no-act could be more helpful (print download size)
> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 21:56:45 -0700 (MST)
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca>
> To: James Troup <james@nocrew.org>
> CC: Deity Creation Team <deity@lists.debian.org>
>
> On 7 Feb 1999, James Troup wrote:
>
> > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca> writes:
> >
> > > severity 32883 fixed
> > > done
> >
> > Fixed? Eh? Colour me a biased anti-apt fan, but since when does
> > fixing stuff in CVS, which is not available as a Debian package count
> > as fixed? :(
>
> The fixed priority was originaly for things that have been fixed but have
> not been officialy (usually by the original packager) fixed. It makes some
> degree of sense to mark things that have been fixed as fixed and leave
> them in the bug system untill they are packaged.
>
> I get so many dupliaced bug reports it is painfull to manage them all. At
> least this way someone who really cares can look at the bug list and find
> it is corrected and ask how to get the fixes (from CVS) and hopefully not
> report it again.
>
> Jason
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Bug#33006: "Offline-queue" access method for apt
> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 23:11:49 -0700 (MST)
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca>
> To: Florian Laws <florian@void.s.bawue.de>, 33006@bugs.debian.org
> CC: APT Development Team <deity@lists.debian.org>
>
> On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Florian Laws wrote:
>
> > It would be nice if apt had a special method for offline use.
> > It should spool all requests for new packages into a file
> > that could be taken to an other machine with a good internet
> > connection by removable media.
>
> There is presently two ways to do exactly this with APTv3.
>
> The first is to copy the status file to another machine and use the
> configuration directives to make the other APT use it. You'd also use the
> configuration directives to make the other APT use a cache directory on
> the removable media - it would then download the files and you could take
> them over to the other machine.
>
> The next option is to use apt-get --print-uris (in CVS) to print out a
> lits of all the files that need to be fetched, you can then feed them to
> whatever program you like.
>
> With the first option you can also convince APT to fetch and transfer
> index files rather easially. Look in the apt.conf man page for pointers.
>
> Jason
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: RE: apt-get update failing
> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 03:58:59 -0600 (CST)
> From: Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org>
> To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca>
> CC: Dean.Carpenter@pharma.com, talein@whitestar.soark.net,
> Debian User List <debian-user@lists.debian.org>, deity@lists.debian.org
>
> On Sat, 6 Feb 1999, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> >
> > On Fri, 5 Feb 1999 Dean.Carpenter@pharma.com wrote:
> >
> > > Yup. I've removed the Packages.gz files and had mirror reget them several
> > > times. I also tried right from the ftp site ...
> >
> > Are you -sure- you have the right version?
> >
>
> Hehe. I logged in to irc, and noticed that talon was having this exact same
> prob. He said he got this error after upgrading to libc6 2.1-1. Downgrading
> to 2.0.7.19981211-2 fixed it.
>
> Adam
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: RE: apt-get update failing
> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 03:34:44 -0700 (MST)
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca>
> To: Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org>
> CC: Dean.Carpenter@pharma.com, talein@whitestar.soark.net,
> Debian User List <debian-user@lists.debian.org>,
> Deity Creation Team <deity@lists.debian.org>
>
> On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Adam Heath wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 5 Feb 1999 Dean.Carpenter@pharma.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yup. I've removed the Packages.gz files and had mirror reget them several
> > > > times. I also tried right from the ftp site ...
> > >
> > > Are you -sure- you have the right version?
> > >
> >
> > Hehe. I logged in to irc, and noticed that talon was having this exact same
> > prob. He said he got this error after upgrading to libc6 2.1-1. Downgrading
> > to 2.0.7.19981211-2 fixed it.
>
> Oh really? That means the C++ iostreams don't work right with 2.1!!!
>
> Jason
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Bug#33032: apt: apt does not count partial files whewn showing how many ks to download
> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 14:11:37 -0200
> From: Cesar.Barros@web4u.com.br
> To: submit@bugs.debian.org
>
> Package: apt
> Version: 0.1.10
>
> Need to get 8942k of archives. After unpacking 26.3M will be used.
>
> The only thing I was getting was emacs20, and I already had got 2MBs of it (and
> yeah, apt tried to resume).
>
> It should say something like 4096k/8942k.
>
> -- System Information
> Debian Release: 2.1
> Kernel Version: Linux cesarb2 2.2.1 #1 Fri Jan 29 14:33:03 EDT 1999 i586 unknown
>
> Versions of the packages apt depends on:
> ii libc6 2.0.7.19981211 GNU Libc: shared libraries
> ii libstdc++2.9 2.91.60-5 The GNU stdc++ library (egcs version)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Bug#33032: apt: apt does not count partial files whewn showing how many ks to download
> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 14:24:18 -0700 (MST)
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca>
> To: Cesar.Barros@web4u.com.br, 33032@bugs.debian.org
> CC: APT Development Team <deity@lists.debian.org>
>
> On Sun, 7 Feb 1999 Cesar.Barros@web4u.com.br wrote:
>
> > Need to get 8942k of archives. After unpacking 26.3M will be used.
> >
> > The only thing I was getting was emacs20, and I already had got 2MBs of it (and
> > yeah, apt tried to resume).
> >
> > It should say something like 4096k/8942k.
>
> Sorry, but there is no way to tell if the file can be resumed before
> actually trying to download it, so either way the estimate will be wrong
> for some people. I think it is better to estimate high than it is to
> estimate low :>
>
> Jason
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Bug#33049: Apt could handle half-way-mirrored mirror sites better
> Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 01:35:51 +0100 (CET)
> From: Remco Blaakmeer <remco-blaakmeer@quicknet.nl>
> To: Debian Bug System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
>
> package: apt
> version: 0.1.10
> severity: wishlist
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a request for the enhancement of the great program called Apt. I
> have been using the 'apt' method for dselect for quite a long time now and
> there is one thing I think could be better handled. It's mirror sites that
> are not quite in sync with the main archive.
>
> There are a few mirror sites in my country to which I have faster access
> than to ftp.debian.org, so my sources.list looks like this (yes, I have a
> local mirror of non-us and I am following potato almost day-to-day):
>
> deb ftp://ftp.nluug.nl/pub/os/Linux/distr/Debian potato main contrib non-free
> deb ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian potato main contrib non-free
> deb file:/home/ftp/pub/debian/debian-non-US potato/binary-$(ARCH)/
> deb ftp://nonus.debian.org/debian potato main contrib non-free non-US
>
> deb ftp://ftp.nluug.nl/pub/os/Linux/distr/Debian slink main contrib non-free
> deb ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian slink main contrib non-free
> deb file:/home/ftp/pub/debian/debian-non-US slink/binary-$(ARCH)/
> deb ftp://nonus.debian.org/debian slink non-US
>
> Now, it happens a lot that ftp.nluug.nl has mirrored the latest Packages
> file but not the newest .deb files. Most of the time it takes a day or two
> before every package I want to upgrade has found its way to the mirror. In
> the mean time, apt refuses to upgrade any of the already-downloaded
> packages. I can call dpkg to install them, but that is of course a
> suboptimal solution.
>
> I would like apt to be extended like this:
>
> - If a new package is to be installed, or an installed package is to be
> upgraded,
> 1 try to download the latest version from the first site in sources.list
> that carries the latest version of the package
> 2 if that fails, try to download the package from the next site that has
> that version of the package
> 3 if that fails and there are more sites that carry the same version of
> the package, go to 2
> 4 if the package still hasn't been found, fail this package like the
> current apt does
>
> That way, I could have a mirror site which is 'close' to me at the top of
> sources.list, although it isn't always in sync with master. Second would
> be a site which is somewhat further away, etc. etc. And ftp.debian.org
> would be the last in the list because that site is assumed to be always
> in sync.
>
> If I have been unclear in any way, please contact me.
>
> Remco
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Bug#33049: Apt could handle half-way-mirrored mirror sites better
> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 18:40:48 -0700 (MST)
> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca>
> To: Remco Blaakmeer <remco-blaakmeer@quicknet.nl>, 33049-done@bugs.debian.org
> CC: APT Development Team <deity@lists.debian.org>
>
> On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
>
> > I have a request for the enhancement of the great program called Apt. I
> > have been using the 'apt' method for dselect for quite a long time now and
> > there is one thing I think could be better handled. It's mirror sites that
> > are not quite in sync with the main archive.
>
> APTv3 already does this (http://www.debian.org/~jgg) and there is already
> a bug that describes pretty much exactly this so I'm going to close this
> one.
>
> Jason
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Bug#33049: marked as done (Apt could handle half-way-mirrored mirror sites better)
> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 99 19:48 CST
> From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System)
> To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca>
> CC: APT Development Team <deity@lists.debian.org>
>
> Your message dated Sun, 7 Feb 1999 18:40:48 -0700 (MST)
> with message-id <Pine.LNX.3.96.990207183954.25954O-100000@wakko>
> and subject line Bug#33049: Apt could handle half-way-mirrored mirror sites better
> has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
>
> This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
> If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
> bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
>
> (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I'm
> talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
> somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
>
> Ian Jackson
> (administrator, Debian bugs database)
>
> Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 8 Feb 1999 00:36:07 +0000
> Received: (qmail 14956 invoked from network); 8 Feb 1999 00:36:05 -0000
> Received: from unknown (HELO rd31-144.quicknet.nl) (root@195.66.31.144)
> by master.debian.org with SMTP; 8 Feb 1999 00:36:05 -0000
> Received: by rd31-144.quicknet.nl
> via sendmail from stdin
> id <m109eg3-000bciC@rd31-144.quicknet.nl> (Debian Smail3.2.0.102)
> for submit@bugs.debian.org; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 01:35:51 +0100 (CET)
> Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 01:35:51 +0100 (CET)
> From: Remco Blaakmeer <remco-blaakmeer@quicknet.nl>
> X-Sender: remco@rd31-144.quicknet.nl
> To: Debian Bug System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
> Subject: Apt could handle half-way-mirrored mirror sites better
> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.990208010505.11919A-100000@rd31-144.quicknet.nl>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> package: apt
> version: 0.1.10
> severity: wishlist
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a request for the enhancement of the great program called Apt. I
> have been using the 'apt' method for dselect for quite a long time now and
> there is one thing I think could be better handled. It's mirror sites that
> are not quite in sync with the main archive.
>
> There are a few mirror sites in my country to which I have faster access
> than to ftp.debian.org, so my sources.list looks like this (yes, I have a
> local mirror of non-us and I am following potato almost day-to-day):
>
> deb ftp://ftp.nluug.nl/pub/os/Linux/distr/Debian potato main contrib non-free
> deb ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian potato main contrib non-free
> deb file:/home/ftp/pub/debian/debian-non-US potato/binary-$(ARCH)/
> deb ftp://nonus.debian.org/debian potato main contrib non-free non-US
>
> deb ftp://ftp.nluug.nl/pub/os/Linux/distr/Debian slink main contrib non-free
> deb ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian slink main contrib non-free
> deb file:/home/ftp/pub/debian/debian-non-US slink/binary-$(ARCH)/
> deb ftp://nonus.debian.org/debian slink non-US
>
> Now, it happens a lot that ftp.nluug.nl has mirrored the latest Packages
> file but not the newest .deb files. Most of the time it takes a day or two
> before every package I want to upgrade has found its way to the mirror. In
> the mean time, apt refuses to upgrade any of the already-downloaded
> packages. I can call dpkg to install them, but that is of course a
> suboptimal solution.
>
> I would like apt to be extended like this:
>
> - If a new package is to be installed, or an installed package is to be
> upgraded,
> 1 try to download the latest version from the first site in sources.list
> that carries the latest version of the package
> 2 if that fails, try to download the package from the next site that has
> that version of the package
> 3 if that fails and there are more sites that carry the same version of
> the package, go to 2
> 4 if the package still hasn't been found, fail this package like the
> current apt does
>
> That way, I could have a mirror site which is 'close' to me at the top of
> sources.list, although it isn't always in sync with master. Second would
> be a site which is somewhat further away, etc. etc. And ftp.debian.org
> would be the last in the list because that site is assumed to be always
> in sync.
>
> If I have been unclear in any way, please contact me.
>
> Remco
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Bug#33049: Apt could handle half-way-mirrored mirror sites better
> Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 18:24:57 +0100 (CET)
> From: Remco Blaakmeer <remco-blaakmeer@quicknet.nl>
> To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca>
> CC: APT Development Team <deity@lists.debian.org>
>
> On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> >
> > > I have a request for the enhancement of the great program called Apt. I
> > > have been using the 'apt' method for dselect for quite a long time now and
> > > there is one thing I think could be better handled. It's mirror sites that
> > > are not quite in sync with the main archive.
> >
> > APTv3 already does this (http://www.debian.org/~jgg) and there is already
> > a bug that describes pretty much exactly this so I'm going to close this
> > one.
>
> Ok. It's great to hear that you people have already been working on this
> problem. Keep up the good work.
>
> Remco
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: gnome-apt
> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:09:59 -0500 (EST)
> From: thomas.r.shemanske@dartmouth.edu
> To: apt@packages.debian.org
>
> Hi
>
> Sorry for the bother.
>
> As closely as possible I followed the instructions at
> http://www.debian.org/~hp/gnome-apt.html
>
> I added
> deb http://www.debian.org/~mblevin/gnome-apt ./
> to my apt/sources file, updated, downloaded and installed.
>
> gnome-apt will start and I can view the installed files, but I can't
> update:
>
> Update failed.
> The following errors may help:
> The method driver /usr/lib/apt/methods/ftp could not be found.
>
> I saw one other person with this note on the linux.debian.user group,
> but saw no response.
>
> I also tried compiling the source from scratch, but that too failed to
> produce the ftp object. In fact I manually descended to the ftp
> directory and ran make, but encountered
>
> bash-2.01$ make
> Compiling parsescript.cc to ../../obj/methods/ftp/parsescript.o
> parsescript.cc:16: strutl.h: No such file or directory
> make: *** [../../obj/methods/ftp/parsescript.o] Error 1
>
> Any suggestions welcome.
>
> Thanks
>
> Tom
>
> --
> Thomas R. Shemanske
> (Mailing Address) (Office/Internet Information)
> Department of Mathematics 203 Choate House
> 6188 Bradley Hall thomas.r.shemanske@dartmouth.edu
> Dartmouth College http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~trs/
> Hanover, NH 03755-3551 (603) 646 - 3179
>
> Directions: http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~trs/choatehouse.html
>
> Winter Term Office Hours: MWF 3-4:30 pm, Tu 10-11:15 am
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: gnome-apt
> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 15:12:11 -0600 (CST)
> From: Havoc Pennington <hp@Mcs.Net>
> To: thomas.r.shemanske@dartmouth.edu
> CC: deity@lists.debian.org
>
> On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 thomas.r.shemanske@dartmouth.edu wrote:
> >
> > Update failed.
> > The following errors may help:
> > The method driver /usr/lib/apt/methods/ftp could not be found.
> >
>
> The ftp method does not work in the latest Apt, so it's not in the
> package. The error you're getting is exactly correct. :-)
> Use http if possible.
>
> I should add a note to the web page, since this is sort of a FAQ.
>
> Thanks,
> Havoc
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: gnome-apt
> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 16:24:05 -0500
> From: Mitch Blevins <mblevin@mindspring.com>
> To: thomas.r.shemanske@dartmouth.edu
> CC: apt@packages.debian.org
>
> In foo.debian-deity, you wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Sorry for the bother.
> >
> > As closely as possible I followed the instructions at
> > http://www.debian.org/~hp/gnome-apt.html
> >
> > I added
> > deb http://www.debian.org/~mblevin/gnome-apt ./
> > to my apt/sources file, updated, downloaded and installed.
> >
> > gnome-apt will start and I can view the installed files, but I can't
> > update:
> >
> > Update failed.
> > The following errors may help:
> > The method driver /usr/lib/apt/methods/ftp could not be found.
> >
> >
> > I saw one other person with this note on the linux.debian.user group,
> > but saw no response.
> >
> > I also tried compiling the source from scratch, but that too failed to
> > produce the ftp object. In fact I manually descended to the ftp
> > directory and ran make, but encountered
> >
> > bash-2.01$ make
> > Compiling parsescript.cc to ../../obj/methods/ftp/parsescript.o
> > parsescript.cc:16: strutl.h: No such file or directory
> > make: *** [../../obj/methods/ftp/parsescript.o] Error 1
>
> Apt 0.3.0 does not have a working ftp method yet.
> If you _have_ to use ftp, then you must downgrade apt to 0.1.10 and
> uninstall gnome-apt.
> If possible, just use an http url such as http://http.us.debian.org
>
> To fix your compile problem, just change the
> #include <strutl.h>
>
> to
>
> #include <apt-pkg/strutl.h>
>
> But I don't think it works even if you get it to compile.
> Others on the list may correct me on this.
>
> -Mitch
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: gnome-apt
> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 20:48:20 -0200
> From: Lalo Martins <lalo@webcom.com>
> To: deity@lists.debian.org
>
> On Feb 09, thomas.r.shemanske@dartmouth.edu decided to present us with:
> >
> > Update failed.
> > The following errors may help:
> > The method driver /usr/lib/apt/methods/ftp could not be found.
>
> Shouldn't the package be rebuilt (maybe renumbered 0.3.1 or even
> 0.3.0.4), and some big obvious warnings added like "This release
> has no ftp method"? Perhaps in the "Description:" header,
> postinst, --help, and even when it runs? Or optionally add a
> fake ftp method that prints the warning and returns an error?
>
> []s,
> |alo
> +----
> --
> I am Lalo of deB-org. You will be freed.
> Resistance is futile.
>
> http://www.webcom.com/lalo mailto:lalo@webcom.com
> pgp key in the web page
>
> Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: gnome-apt
> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 21:07:54 -0500
> From: Mitch Blevins <mblevin@mindspring.com>
> To: lalo@webcom.com
> CC: apt@packages.debian.org
>
> In foo.debian-deity, you wrote:
> > On Feb 09, thomas.r.shemanske@dartmouth.edu decided to present us with:
> > >
> > > Update failed.
> > > The following errors may help:
> > > The method driver /usr/lib/apt/methods/ftp could not be found.
> >
> > Shouldn't the package be rebuilt (maybe renumbered 0.3.1 or even
> > 0.3.0.4), and some big obvious warnings added like "This release
> > has no ftp method"? Perhaps in the "Description:" header,
> > postinst, --help, and even when it runs? Or optionally add a
> > fake ftp method that prints the warning and returns an error?
>
> I recompiled apt 0.3.0 and posted it with gnome-apt because it had
> features not present in the already-posted apt 0.3.0
>
> Looking back, this was a bad idea to have another apt with the same
> rev floating around.... but too late now.
> I also should have put an ftp warning in the description, but... doh!
>
> I hope that a 0.3.1 will be released soon, then I can have gnome-apt
> depend on apt >= 0.3.1 and pull 0.3.0 from the directory housing
> gnome-apt.
>
> -Mitch
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Processed:
> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 99 18:03 CST
> From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System)
> To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca>
> CC: debian-bugs-closed@lists.debian.org (#33032),
> APT Development Team <deity@lists.debian.org>(apt #32919 #33032)
>
> Processing commands for control@bugs.debian.org:
>
> > close 33032
> Bug#33032: apt: apt does not count partial files whewn showing how many ks to download
> Bug closed, ack sent to submitter - they'd better know why !
>
> > severity 32919 wishlist
> Bug#32919: apt: wish: when not enough disk space, incremental install : speedup!
> Severity set to `wishlist'.
>
> > merge 30505
> Unknown command or malformed arguments to command.
>
> > done
> Unknown command or malformed arguments to command.
>
> >
> End of message, stopping processing here.
>
> Please contact me if you need assistance.
>
> Ian Jackson
> (administrator, Debian bugs database)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: bug?
> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 12:23:45 +0100
> From: Jozsa Kristof <dynax@kami.terra.vein.hu>
> To: apt@packages.debian.org
>
> kami:~# apt-get install g++
> Reading Package Lists... Done
> Building Dependency Tree... Done
> 1 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 24 not upgraded.
> 4 packages not fully installed or removed.
> 0,1200978
> How odd.. The sizes didn't match, email apt@packages.debian.org
> Need to get 0 of archives. After unpacking 30.7k will be freed.
> E: I wasn't able to locate file for the mtools package. This might mean you
> need to manually fix this package.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Bug#33291: When a package is marked as "purge", apt changes it into "remove"
> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:57:18 +0100 (CET)
> From: Remco Blaakmeer <remco-blaakmeer@quicknet.nl>
> To: Debian Bug System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
>
> package: apt
> version: 0.1.10
>
> Hi,
>
> Currently, I am using the "apt" method in dselect for installing and
> removing packages. However, there is some behaviour that could be better.
>
> If I want to really get rid of a package, I mark it as "purge" in dselect.
> This assures me, that there are no conffiles, startup scripts etc. left on
> my system. But as soon as I choose [I]nstall in dselect's main menu, apt
> changes all these "purge" marks into "remove" marks. This is very much
> undesired behaviour. If I want a package to be "remove"d, remove it. If I
> want a package to be "purge"d, purge it. But please, do not assume that I
> do not really want to erase the config files. I really do want to erase
> them in most cases.
>
> Remco
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: "Offline" apt
> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 21:09:01 +0100
> From: Florian Laws <florian@void.s.bawue.de>
> To: apt@packages.debian.org
>
> Hello, apt developers,
>
> I'm terribly sorry someone already sent me
> information on this, but I deleted it. :-(
>
> My question is:
> How can one make apt spool the list of
> packages to get on a removable medium,
> which can be then carried to another
> computer with a better network connection.
> Ideally it should be possible to switch
> easily between normal and 'spooling' apt
> operation, because I want get single packages
> the normal way via my usual dialup connection,
> but large transfers like dist-upgrade by
> the removable media method.
>
> It would be also nice to have a switch smiliar
> to -s that shows all URLs to be downloaded,
> that it can be processed with tools like wget
> on a non-debian System.
> The kind poster of the mail I deleted said
> this was possible with the apt version in CVS.
> Can anyone direct me to some information how
> to use the debian/apt CVS server do you have
> CVS snapshots available?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Florian Laws
Reply to: