Hi,
No, niether dpkg-ftp nor dpkg-mountable modify the available
file directly. What, then, causes the problems upgrading to frozen?
Methinks (despite the tone of your remarks) that the problem then
does in fact lie in dpkg; as it seems to accept a packages file that
it consequently ca
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do dpkg-ftp or dpkg-mountable modify /var/lib/dpkg/available
> directly ?
No, it doesn't. It keeps its own copies of the Packages files in
/var/lib/dpkg/methods/ftp and correctly merges them in with
--merge-avail.
> If you tried to dpkg --merge-availabl
On May 28, Ian Jackson wrote
>
> Do dpkg-ftp or dpkg-mountable modify /var/lib/dpkg/available
> directly ?
I doubt it. Certainly dpkg-mountable never modifies any system files
directly, since (as I'm sure you're aware) this is a rather silly thing
to do, and IIRC from reading the dpkg-ftp source
Do dpkg-ftp or dpkg-mountable modify /var/lib/dpkg/available
directly ?
If so then that is why this problem (older dpkg versions not
understanding epochs) has such serious consequences. If you tried to
dpkg --merge-available or dpkg --update-available with a Packages file
that the currently-insta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raul Miller) wrote on 27.05.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> These packages should conflict with the versions of dpkg which
> have the problem. [Or maybe a predepends on a good version of
> dpkg?]
That won't help. Once you [U]pdate, the old dpkg will refuse to work. You
don't e
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Koenig) wrote on 27.05.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Scott K. Ellis wrote:
>
> >And if you don't read the documentation, especially the release
> >instructions, you get what you deserve.
>
> What part of the documentation are you referring to? I found nothing
> referring
On May 27, Thomas Koenig wrote
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> > People will probably have told you this, but the Packages file
> > was not corrupted, those 1:x.x.xx are critical (these are epochs),
> > and the problem actually is that the version of dpkg being used is
> > too old to understand
Scott K. Ellis wrote:
>And if you don't read the documentation, especially the release
>instructions, you get what you deserve.
What part of the documentation are you referring to? I found nothing
referring to that issue in the READMEs or in the doc subdirectory.
Where else is a user supposed to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Tue, 27 May 1997, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> > People will probably have told you this, but the Packages file
> > was not corrupted, those 1:x.x.xx are critical (these are epochs),
> > and the problem actually is that the version
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> People will probably have told you this, but the Packages file
> was not corrupted, those 1:x.x.xx are critical (these are epochs),
> and the problem actually is that the version of dpkg being used is
> too old to understand epochs.
OUCH.
Is there any reason why
Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Perhaps dselect just needs to always update dpkg before calling
> anything else? (dftp does this)
In this case it wouldn't help as the Update breaks it.
Guy
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Why is this information (about the need to upgrade dpkg
> *first*) not screaming out all over the web pages and the
> installation README's? (pardon me if the information is in the
> README's)
Perhaps dselect just needs to always update dpkg before calling
anything else? (dftp does t
Hi,
People will probably have told you this, but the Packages file
was not corrupted, those 1:x.x.xx are critical (these are epochs),
and the problem actually is that the version of dpkg being used is
too old to understand epochs.
Why is this information (about the need to upg
Galen Hazelwood wrote:
> This is a legitimate version format. You failed to upgrade dpkg
> before upgrading everything else. Fellow Debian developers, we
> _really_ need to put up warnings that this needs to be done! Otherwise
> innocent people will corrupt their systems by upgrading.
Maybe w
Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> I just spent an interesting afternoon trying to upgrade a 1.1 system
> to 1.3.
>
> First, /var/lib/dpkg/available was corrupted because of some
> incorrect values in the Version - field (somehow they had gotten to
> the format of 1:1-2 or similar; bug report submitted).
15 matches
Mail list logo
