On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 10:56:10AM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 12:56:14AM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> > 3) Even if the bug has been filed 8192 times and fixed for the last
> > month, everyone running stable is still going to run into this
> > problem. Everyone.
>
> No
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 12:56:14AM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 10:22:07PM -0500, Alan Shutko wrote:
> > Or maybe, the software is buggy. At the very least, the error
> > message should be changed. Why _should_ people need to tweak this
> > value? (Personally, I find i
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 10:22:07PM -0500, Alan Shutko wrote:
> Nathan E Norman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > That's an interesting argument: if the problem is widespread people
> > shouldn't have to do their homework?
>
> Or maybe, the software is buggy. At the very least, the error
> messag
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 08:19:57PM -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote:
> > > Rob Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > These seems to be coming up about once a day on the list, isn't *anyone*
> > > > searching the archives or at least googling?
>
> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 12:08:56PM -0600, Jack O'Quin
Nathan E Norman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's an interesting argument: if the problem is widespread people
> shouldn't have to do their homework?
Or maybe, the software is buggy. At the very least, the error
message should be changed. Why _should_ people need to tweak this
value? (Perso
> > Rob Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > These seems to be coming up about once a day on the list, isn't *anyone*
> > > searching the archives or at least googling?
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 12:08:56PM -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote:
> > Perhaps the default is set too low, and many people are seei
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 12:08:56PM -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote:
> Rob Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > These seems to be coming up about once a day on the list, isn't *anyone*
> > searching the archives or at least googling?
>
> Perhaps the default is set too low, and many people are seeing this
Rob Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 02:32:23PM +0100, Joshua SS Miller wrote:
> > You have to much info for the apt-get cache to handle. Up the size of
> > Cache-Limit. I have my set very high.
> >
> > joshua@sunlap:~$ cat /etc/apt/apt.conf
> > APT::Default-Release "
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 02:32:23PM +0100, Joshua SS Miller wrote:
> You have to much info for the apt-get cache to handle. Up the size of
> Cache-Limit. I have my set very high.
>
> joshua@sunlap:~$ cat /etc/apt/apt.conf
> APT::Default-Release "testing";
> APT::Cache-Limit 1000;
> Apt::Get:
You have to much info for the apt-get cache to handle. Up the size of
Cache-Limit. I have my set very high.
joshua@sunlap:~$ cat /etc/apt/apt.conf
APT::Default-Release "testing";
APT::Cache-Limit 1000;
Apt::Get::Purge;
Joshua SS Miller
On Tue, 2003-01-14 at 10:02, Robert Ian Smit wrote:
* Jorge Santos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [14-01-2003 02:24]:
> I got the following error during my last update, after getting the
> Package lists:
>
> Reading Package Lists... Error!
> E: Dynamic MMap ran out of room
> E: Error occured while processing perl-doc (NewVersion1)
> E: Problem with MergeList
I got the following error during my last update, after getting the
Package lists:
Reading Package Lists... Error!
E: Dynamic MMap ran out of room
E: Error occured while processing perl-doc (NewVersion1)
E: Problem with MergeList /var/lib/dpkg/status
E: The package lists or status file could not be
12 matches
Mail list logo
