On 25 Jun 2000, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>dpkg-scanpackages binarydir overridefile [pathprefix] >
>Packages
>
>binarydir is the name of the binary tree to process (for
>example, contrib/binary-i386). It is best to make this
>relative to the root of th
> "Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jason> On 25 Jun 2000, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>> deb file:/usr/local/src/debs localdebs main non-free
>>
>> Then "apt-get update" looks for
>>
>> /usr/local/src/debs/dists/localdebs/{main,non-free}/binary-i386/Packages
>>
>> but "apt-
On 25 Jun 2000, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> It is not this simple; in fact, I think there's an out-and-out bug.
> I'll report it when I have some time to waste.
It is a bug with whoever typed dpkg-scanpackages because they did it
wrong.
> deb file:/usr/local/src/debs localdebs main non-free
>
> Th
> "Olaf" == Olaf Meeuwissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
itz> I have a potato system, but I downloaded a couple of upgraded
itz> packages from woody and placed them in a local mirror directory.
itz> I generated the Packages files with dpkg-scanpackages. That went
itz> fine, so I added a "deb f
Ian Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What are the packaging frontends (dselect in particular) supposed to
> do when 2 sources from sources.list provide different version numbers
> of the same package?
Don't know for sure, but based on experience I'd say they use the
latest (and greates?) v
--
Byns Zrrhjvffra Rcfba Xbjn Pbecbengvba, Erfrnepu naq Qrirybczrag
What are the packaging frontends (dselect in particular) supposed to
do when 2 sources from sources.list provide different version numbers
of the same package?
I have a potato system, but I downloaded a couple of upgraded packages from
woody and placed them in a local mirror directory. I generate
7 matches
Mail list logo
