Bug#240050: repeat info
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 14:22:43 -0800, "Matt Zimmerman" <mdz@debian.org>
said:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 10:27:42AM +0000, owen beresford wrote:
>
> > Yes it is a sensible guess that it was what I did that
> > induced the error.
> > That is why I attached a section of the root bash history
> > log, and the current sources list file.
>
> The history file does provide any useful information.
>
> > I updated my list of package servers, as I was getting lots
> > of 404 errors
> > At this point it said something to the effect of
> > "not enuf room for the MMap"
> > Via googling, I discover reducing the number of package
> > servers solves this, so I did.
>
> OK. This is all information that you left out of your report; this
> immediately preceded the error.
This was in the email I sent (although given that the question was
restarted, maybe the wrong one).
I transcribed this info from the previous email.
> > I have deleted all the buffers I am aware of
> > /var/cache/apt/*.bin and /var/cache/apt/partial/*
> > So this shouldn't be corrupt data
> >
> > **Are there any other potentionaly corrupt buffers I should delete?**
>
> If you suspect that your filesystem could be corrupted, that could
> certainly
> cause this. You could try debsums or a similar tool as a first step..
No according to fsck the /file system/ is fine.
> > deb http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/ stable main
> > deb http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/ woody main
> > deb http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/ testing main
>
> "stable" and "woody" are the same; you are downloading the same list of
> packages twice. Comment out one of them.
I also thought this, however if I use
deb http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/ stable
apt-get objects with a syntax error. I iterated until it stopped
objecting.
Is there a manual/ spec for this file type?
> > ###########################################################################
> > # Below are sites you may want to consider adding but are commented out
> > #
> > # -----[ Uncomment below for HELIX CODE site (GNOME) ]-----
> > # deb http://spidermonkey.ximian.com/distributions/debian unstable main
> > # -----[ Uncomment below for KDE site (& Kdevelop) ]-----
> > # deb http://kde.tdyc.com potato main crypto optional qt1apps
> > # -----[ Uncomment below for debian security ]-----
> > # deb http://security.debian.org stable/updates main contrib non-free
>
> Where did these come from? Do you have unofficial packages installed on
> your system?
I wanted the newest version of KDE, so I pocked around a few servers.
This (extra text) was installed with one of the upgrades.
However as it is commented, it should make no difference.
Define "unofficial packages"
Everything other than vim is installed using apt-get,
so should be part of your distrib.
Vim is the standard 6.2 release from www.vim.org
(also in a deb file, but newer than the 'deb standard')
RH do funny things with vim configs, so I always keep a seperate
copy for this app (its the most used tool other than bash)
Oh and opera, and koffice
but these shouldn't affect package management.
Deb standard versions on these were too old IMO.
--
owen beresford
owencanprogram@fastmail.fm
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Access your email from home and the web
Reply to: