On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:15:15PM -0400, James Vega wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 04:04:31PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > > There are four bugs there: > > 1. (/.+) should be (.+) -- there's no reason relative urls shouldn't work > > Relative URLs don't make much sense in a sources.list file. What would > they be relative to?
I see the example was using a file URI specified by the user. A relative URI can make sense in this case, but I'll still need to check how apt's URIs are handled. > However, the file URI example in sources.list(5) suggests the format is > "file:/absolute/path/to/file" instead of the usual > "file://relative/path" or "file:///absolute/path". I thought I had used > the latter formats before, but I may need to revisit that and see what > apt actually expects/apt-cache policy shows so we can update that > appropriately. -- James GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <james...@debian.org>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
