On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 08:02:18PM +0200, Michalis Georgiou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > Daniel Burrows wrote: >> I'm wondering if foo (what is it, anyway?) could be hanging around as >> a virtual package. Note that in apt's view, this doesn't just mean that >> it's a Virtual package in the dpkg sense; it could also be mentioned in >> some other package's dependency fields. >> > package foo, is usually, a custom debian image, for example, > linux-image-2.6.24.1. I also had this problem by using an external > repository for compiz-fusion(i've done a clean install since then). > > when i run apt-cache showpkg foo the output is : > > Package: foo > Versions: > > Reverse Depends: > Dependencies: > Provides: > Reverse Provides: > > > apt-cache search pkgnames was wrong. i meant apt-cache pkgnames.
Right, and I see now you wrote that this is how the bash completion works. From the above output it looks pretty clear that foo is a pure virtual package, but it's present in the apt cache. (I'm not sure why) >From the source, "apt-cache pkgnames" will return virtual packages unless you pass "-o Apt::Cache::AllNames=false" on the command-line. I'm a bit puzzled about why this is needed, since it looks to me from the source like "false" should be the default. Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
