On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 14:44:51 +0100, Anton Piatek wrote: > 2008/6/21 Florian Kulzer : > > On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 13:04:54 +0100, Anton Piatek wrote: > >> Hi, > >> Does anyone know why apt-get crashes when updating? > >> > >> Hit http://security.debian.org lenny/updates/main Sources > >> Hit http://security.debian.org lenny/updates/contrib Sources > >> Hit http://security.debian.org lenny/updates/non-free Sources > >> Fetched 9B in 2s (4B/s) > >> Segmentation faultsts... 60% > >> > >> Removing a deb source solves the problem (5 sources works, 6 fails). > >> I have had this happen before, with sarge i think, and upgrading apt > >> to a newer level solved it, however uprading apt now will require > >> upgrading libperl > >> My apt is currently at version 0.7.6 on a mixed lenny/sid system (with > >> some packages from etch, unison in particular) > > > > I think you are not doing yourself any favors by running your system > > like that. > > Unfortunately unison is designed such that both client and server > versions must match, so as my servers are etch I need the etch version > on my laptop.
I see. As far as I can tell, you can install the Etch version of unison on a current Sid system. > I need software from Lenny/Sid on my laptop. I suppose I could move to > complete Sid however I do not want to have to worry about the extra > effort of all the extra updates that I would have to install on Sid > rather than Lenny. It seems that I may have misunderstood what you meant with "mixed lenny/sid" system. In any case, the differences are not that great: Right now, 94% of the packages in Sid are also available in Lenny, and 88% of these shared packages are at the same version in both repositories. If you need some of those 6% exclusive-to-Sid packages (or the newest versions of other packages) then I think it is less of a hassle to move to Sid completely and be done with it (provided that you use apt-listbugs, apt-listchanges and keep at least one additional kernel image around). I hope this explains my previous remark a bit better. [...] > It is indeed solved by increasing the apt-cache limit. There does > appear to be a bugreport open, though I doubt I can add much to it > without moving apt up to the unstable level. > Aptitude has the same problem, though is more explicit about why. > > It seems that once I run apt with a 20mb limit the problem goes away, > so presumably apt is happy keeping the cache at a larger size once it > gets that big. > I will add the option to my config anyway, so hopefully will not see this > again. > > Is it worth suggesting that the default cache size be increased? I suspect that the default cache limit is set such that it is appropriate for a standard sources.list with only "stable" in it. -- Regards, | http://users.icfo.es/Florian.Kulzer Florian | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
