Re: apt-get'able Release file format

2003-09-22 Thread Matt Zimmerman
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 10:31:50AM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 12:48:24AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 10:20:36PM -0600, Adam Conrad wrote: > > > > > Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > > > > > > That sounds backwards. "Component" is the o

Re: apt-get'able Release file format

2003-09-22 Thread Jochen Voss
Hello, On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 12:48:24AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 10:20:36PM -0600, Adam Conrad wrote: > > > Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > > > > That sounds backwards. "Component" is the one recognized by apt, and > > > (naturally) the one used by official Release f

Re: apt-get'able Release file format

2003-09-21 Thread Matt Zimmerman
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 10:20:36PM -0600, Adam Conrad wrote: > Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > > That sounds backwards. "Component" is the one recognized by apt, and > > (naturally) the one used by official Release files in the > > Debian archive. > > "Components: updates/main updates/contrib upda

RE: apt-get'able Release file format

2003-09-21 Thread Adam Conrad
Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > That sounds backwards. "Component" is the one recognized by apt, and > (naturally) the one used by official Release files in the > Debian archive. "Components: updates/main updates/contrib updates/non-free" [1] ... Adam [1] http://klecker.debian.org/debian-security/d

Re: apt-get'able Release file format

2003-09-21 Thread Matt Zimmerman
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 03:53:00PM -0700, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote: > In my looking I check'd out http.us.debian.org, debian.seabone.net and > security.debian.org... The IPv6 repository was the one in question that > used "Component" while the others used the plural version... Although > obviou