On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 14:56, James Gray wrote: > Mr Hardy! You are a life saver!! *blush*
> OK, you got me on the right track - so just incase anyone else has a similar > problem in the future here's how I fixed it: > > 1. get another machine with the same sources.list file (I'm actually running > stable, so that was easy....there was another "stable" box in the same > room). Oh! You're running stable? Not sure what I was thinking assuming it was unstable, then. > 2. Make sure both machines have THE SAME VERSION of the problem packages > installed (zoo in my case). > 3. On the GOOD machine (as root): > tar -cvf ~/foo.tar /var/lib/dpkg/info/zoo* There's quite a handful of other files you're tarring up there, too. Most notably the control scripts that were packaged with the .deb, and which are run before/after installing/removing. Mostly redundant info, really. :-) I'd be a little concerned about how this could have happened, now. Has the /var partition been fsck'ed lately? Could also be time to run a badblocks check over it. > I now have apt/dpkg working again! YAY!! Try doing THAT with a screwed RPM > database etc! :P <meta tag=flamesuit content=on> The dpkg database can be every bit as finicky if you don't treat it nicely. I've had to repair both, with similar amounts of pain and hair-pulling. Yet to see any serious advantages, as far as the basic package layout and housekeeping goes, to either format. Partly because I'm very out of touch with the way of the Red Hat, but is there seriously that much difference between rpm's installed packages db and dpkg's? -- Pete -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
