Re: Apt sources.list

On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 12:18:35PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Anyway, in the time of freeze like now (probably with more > users trying testing), isn't it important that testing gets > security updates? It's not really about what's "important", but what's feasible given the available resource

Re: Apt sources.list

On 2023-04-18 13:52:13 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 1:46 PM Frank wrote: > > Interesting. Like Tixy, I was under the impression testing didn't > > receive security support. I remember checking that several times over > > the years. Curious. Anyway, in the time of freeze

Re: Apt sources.list

On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 1:46 PM Frank wrote: > > Op 18-04-2023 om 16:33 schreef Vincent Lefevre: > > On 2023-04-15 21:59:19 +0200, Frank wrote: > >> Op 15-04-2023 om 18:12 schreef Tixy: > >>> Testing doesn't get explicit security support so there's no point in > >>> having 'testing-security' lines

Re: Apt sources.list

Op 18-04-2023 om 16:33 schreef Vincent Lefevre: On 2023-04-15 21:59:19 +0200, Frank wrote: Op 15-04-2023 om 18:12 schreef Tixy: Testing doesn't get explicit security support so there's no point in having 'testing-security' lines in sources.list (I guess it'll give an error anyway). No error.

Re: Apt sources.list

On 2023-04-15 21:59:19 +0200, Frank wrote: > Op 15-04-2023 om 18:12 schreef Tixy: > > On Sat, 2023-04-15 at 08:11 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > > > > According to https://www.debian.org/releases/, bookworm at this time is > > > "testing". But when the next release comes, bookworm will st

Re: Apt sources.list

On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 12:45 AM wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 09:20:22PM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > [...] > > > Corporations don't need browser cooperation for Data Loss Prevention > > > (DLP) (but they already have it). Corporations just run an > > > interception proxy, like NetSkope.

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 09:20:22PM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: [...] > > Corporations don't need browser cooperation for Data Loss Prevention > > (DLP) (but they already have it). Corporations just run an > > interception proxy, like NetSkope. The NetScope Root CA is loaded into > > every browse

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 4:52 PM Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 3:06 PM Tim Woodall wrote: > > > > On Sat, 15 Apr 2023, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > > > Now, personally I don't feel this is a threat model that I need to > > > worry about. I just use plain old http sources at home

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 3:06 PM Tim Woodall wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Apr 2023, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > Now, personally I don't feel this is a threat model that I need to > > worry about. I just use plain old http sources at home, and if "They" > > learn that I've downloaded rxvt-unicode and mutt,

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023, Greg Wooledge wrote: Now, personally I don't feel this is a threat model that I need to worry about. I just use plain old http sources at home, and if "They" learn that I've downloaded rxvt-unicode and mutt, well, good for Them. The thread model I'm most concerned abou

Re: Apt sources.list

Frank writes: > Are you kidding? No way! Unstable is never pushed into testing just > like that. There are packages that will never move to testing at all! That's correct. Immediately after the release Testing and Stable are identical. Unstable is unchanged. When the freeze is lifted packages th

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sun 16 Apr 2023 at 07:14:31 (+0200), Frank wrote: > Op 15-04-2023 om 22:15 schreef Andrew M.A. Cater: > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 08:14:11PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > > On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 16:45:40 +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > > > > > > > I would suggest that you remain on bookworm until b

Re: Apt sources.list

Op 16-04-2023 om 13:12 schreef Andrew M.A. Cater: Release day when someone pushes the magic switch and the symlinks move :) [snip] "Testing" == "Previous contents of Unstable" (== Trixie / Debian 13) Are you kidding? No way! Unstable is never pushed into testing just like that. There are p

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 20:30:11 -0400 Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 11:09 AM wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:01:27 +0100 > > Alain D D Williams wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 08:52:06AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > While we are talking about this, is there any reason

Re: Apt sources.list

On 15/04/2023 19:54, davidson wrote: On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 12:18:57PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote: It's nice not to be telling everyone who can sniff a plaintext connection which packages you are installing, Without doubt, this is an advantage of a TL

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 12:10:33AM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > On release day, bookworm -> "stable", > > So far so good. > > > "unstable" -> testing == trixie > > Really? I thought there was always a delay for packages to move from > unstable to testing. > Let's try this again because re

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 10:54:10PM +, davidson wrote: [...] > What's wrong, Tomas? Don't you want to watch pornographic videos and > conduct your banking with the same application? I'm glad I don't have to use the browser for any of those. Cheers -- t signature.asc Description: PGP signa

Re: Apt sources.list

Op 15-04-2023 om 22:15 schreef Andrew M.A. Cater: On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 08:14:11PM +0100, Brian wrote: On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 16:45:40 +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: I would suggest that you remain on bookworm until bookworm is released as stable. At that point (and only then) change bookwor

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sun 16 Apr 2023 at 00:10:33 (-0400), Stefan Monnier wrote: > > On release day, bookworm -> "stable", > > So far so good. > > > "unstable" -> testing == trixie > > Really? I thought there was always a delay for packages to move from > unstable to testing. Well, I suppose it gives the naïve u

Re: Apt sources.list

> On release day, bookworm -> "stable", So far so good. > "unstable" -> testing == trixie Really? I thought there was always a delay for packages to move from unstable to testing. Stefan

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 11:09 AM wrote: > On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:01:27 +0100 > Alain D D Williams wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 08:52:06AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > While we are talking about this, is there any reason why all the > > http: should not be https: ? > > > > I have done thi

Re: Apt sources.list

>> Now, personally I don't feel this is a threat model that I need to >> worry about. I just use plain old http sources at home, and if >> "They" learn that I've downloaded rxvt-unicode and mutt, well, good >> for Them. > My understanding is that mandating HTTPS for all connections is supposed >

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 Greg Wooledge wrote: On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 10:54:10PM +, davidson wrote: In case you wish to obscure what software you *install*, but need not conceal the software you *download*: Step one: Make a list of the packages you want, and then augment it with as many plausi

Re: Apt sources.list

On 2023-04-15 at 19:11, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 10:54:10PM +, davidson wrote: > >> In case you wish to obscure what software you *install*, but need >> not conceal the software you *download*: >> >> Step one: Make a list of the packages you want, and then augment >> it

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 10:54:10PM +, davidson wrote: > In case you wish to obscure what software you *install*, but need not > conceal the software you *download*: > > Step one: Make a list of the packages you want, and then augment it > with as many plausible alternatives and red herrings

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 12:18:57PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote: pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: Okay. Let's open this can of worms. I wish more would. The ONLY reason https is used on most sites is because Google *mandated* it years ago. ("Mandate" me

Re: Apt sources.list

Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: ... > On release day, bookworm -> "stable", "unstable" -> testing == trixie > Trixie is copied, essentially as the kickstarter for new "unstable". > "Unstable" == Forky. Unstable == Sid Forky will happen sometime in the future when they start talking about freezing tes

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 08:14:11PM +0100, Brian wrote: > On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 16:45:40 +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > > > I would suggest that you remain on bookworm until bookworm is released as > > stable. At that point (and only then) change bookworm to trixie and carry > > on. As soon as b

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 16:45:40 + "Andrew M.A. Cater" wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 01:23:05PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 08:11:17 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > > > > > Folks: > > > > > > Here is my sources.list file: > > > > > > --- > > > > > > deb http://deb

Re: Apt sources.list

Op 15-04-2023 om 18:12 schreef Tixy: On Sat, 2023-04-15 at 08:11 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: According to https://www.debian.org/releases/, bookworm at this time is "testing". But when the next release comes, bookworm will still be bookworm, but "testing" will be bookworm "plus". I'd

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 07:21:17PM +0100, Alain D D Williams wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 11:00:52AM -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > > > Okay. Let's open this can of worms. The ONLY reason https is used on > > most sites is because Google *mandated* it years ago. ("Mandate" means > > w

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 11:00:52 -0400 wrote: > Okay. Let's open this can of worms. The ONLY reason https is used on > most sites is because Google *mandated* it years ago. ("Mandate" means > we'll downgrade your search ranking if you don't use https.) There is > otherwise no earthly reason to have a

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 11:00:52AM -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > Okay. Let's open this can of worms. The ONLY reason https is used on > most sites is because Google *mandated* it years ago. ("Mandate" means > we'll downgrade your search ranking if you don't use https.) There is > otherwi

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 12:18:57PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote: > pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > > > > Okay. Let's open this can of worms. The ONLY reason https is used on > > most sites is because Google *mandated* it years ago. ("Mandate" means > > we'll downgrade your search ranking if you don't

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 01:23:05PM +0100, Brian wrote: > On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 08:11:17 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > > > Folks: > > > > Here is my sources.list file: > > > > --- > > > > deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib non-free > > deb-src http://debian.uc

Re: Apt sources.list

pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > > Okay. Let's open this can of worms. The ONLY reason https is used on > most sites is because Google *mandated* it years ago. ("Mandate" means > we'll downgrade your search ranking if you don't use https.) There is > otherwise no earthly reason to have an encrypt

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 2023-04-15 at 08:11 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > Folks: > > Here is my sources.list file: > > --- > > deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib non-free > deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib non-free > > deb http://security.debi

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:01:27 +0100 Alain D D Williams wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 08:52:06AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 01:23:05PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > > On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 08:11:17 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com > > > wrote: > > > > --- > > > > > > > > de

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 14:01:27 +0100 Alain D D Williams wrote: > While we are talking about this, is there any reason why all the > http: should not be https: ? > > I have done this on my own machine without ill effect. One reason is if one is using a local cache which does not inspect https stre

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 13:23:05 +0100 Brian wrote: > On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 08:11:17 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > > > Folks: > > > > Here is my sources.list file: > > > > --- > > > > deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib > > non-free deb-src http://debian.uchicag

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 02:59:49PM +0100, Alain D D Williams wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 03:48:31PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 02:01:27PM +0100, Alain D D Williams wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > While we are talking about this, is there any reason why all the

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 03:48:31PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 02:01:27PM +0100, Alain D D Williams wrote: > > [...] > > > While we are talking about this, is there any reason why all the http: > > should > > not be https: ? > > It's just unnecessary CPU on the serv

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 02:01:27PM +0100, Alain D D Williams wrote: [...] > While we are talking about this, is there any reason why all the http: should > not be https: ? It's just unnecessary CPU on the server, that's all. Cheers -- t signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 08:52:06AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 01:23:05PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 08:11:17 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > > > --- > > > > > > deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib non-free > > > deb-src

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 01:23:05PM +0100, Brian wrote: > On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 08:11:17 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > > --- > > > > deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib non-free > > deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib non-free > > > >

Re: Apt sources.list

On Sat 15 Apr 2023 at 08:11:17 -0400, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote: > Folks: > > Here is my sources.list file: > > --- > > deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib non-free > deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ bookworm main contrib non-free > > deb http://security.

Re: APT Sources.list Line Format for Security Updates

Cater Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2021 6:22 AM To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: APT Sources.list Line Format for Security Updates On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 06:55:30PM +, Gregory McPherran wrote: > Hi, > > This shows the new security line form as: > DebianBullseye - Deb

Re: APT Sources.list Line Format for Security Updates

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 08:52:18AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 10:22:17AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > > Take the opportunity to at least upgrade to Debian 9 and, ideally, 10. > > Debian 11 should be here inside a month - if you can get to 10, you'll > > have at least

Re: APT Sources.list Line Format for Security Updates

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 10:22:17AM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: Take the opportunity to at least upgrade to Debian 9 and, ideally, 10. Debian 11 should be here inside a month - if you can get to 10, you'll have at least a further year of security support for 10. Worth noting that skipping re

Re: APT Sources.list Line Format for Security Updates

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 06:55:30PM +, Gregory McPherran wrote: > Hi, > > This shows the new security line form as: > DebianBullseye - Debian > Wiki > deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security

Re: APT Sources.list Line Format for Security Updates

On Lu, 12 iul 21, 18:55:30, Gregory McPherran wrote: > Hi, > > This shows the new security line form as: > DebianBullseye - Debian > Wiki > deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security bullseye-secur

Re: APT Sources.list Line Format for Security Updates

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 06:55:30PM +, Gregory McPherran wrote: >Is one of"http://security.debian.org/debian-security";or >"http://security.debian.org"; the correct format ? > >Or is the "debian-security" portion optional ? I don't think `debian-security` in the URL suffix is optio

Re: APT Sources.list Line Format for Security Updates

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 04:32:52PM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: Try both and see which one works. If the wiki is wrong, edit the wiki so that it's correct. (Then hope some jerk doesn't revert your changes.) There's only one person acting like a jerk here.

Re: APT Sources.list Line Format for Security Updates

Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 06:55:30PM +, Gregory McPherran wrote: > > This shows the new security line form as: > > DebianBullseye - Debian > > Wiki > > deb http://security.debian.org

Re: APT Sources.list Line Format for Security Updates

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 06:55:30PM +, Gregory McPherran wrote: > This shows the new security line form as: > DebianBullseye - Debian > Wiki > deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security bullseye-

Re: Apt sources.list and relative ssh path

On Monday 25 August 2008 17:13, Marcin Lewandowski wrote: > Shachar Or pisze: > > On Monday 25 August 2008 15:17, Marcin Lewandowski wrote: > >> Hi, is there any way to specify relative path on the remote ssh account > >> in the /etc/apt/sources.list file? > > > > What does ssh have to do with the

Re: Apt sources.list and relative ssh path

On Monday 25 August 2008 15:17, Marcin Lewandowski wrote: > Hi, is there any way to specify relative path on the remote ssh account > in the /etc/apt/sources.list file? What does ssh have to do with the sources.list file? 'man sources.list' > > Currently I've only managed to make it working with

Re: Apt/sources.list changes.

Adam Aube wrote: Katipo wrote: Have just changed entries in a sources list from testing to unstable. During updating, error messages occur on the 'security', 'contrib.,' and 'non-free', entries, the rest updating satisfactorily. Sid doesn't have security updates, but it does have contrib an

Re: Apt/sources.list changes.

Katipo wrote: > Have just changed entries in a sources list from testing to unstable. > During updating, error messages occur on the 'security', 'contrib.,' and > 'non-free', entries, the rest updating satisfactorily. Sid doesn't have security updates, but it does have contrib and non-free sectio

Re: Apt/sources.list changes.

Katipo wrote: Hello, Have just changed entries in a sources list from testing to unstable. During updating, error messages occur on the 'security', 'contrib.,' and 'non-free', entries, the rest updating satisfactorily. I'm assuming that these list entries are not applicable to a sid classificatio

Re: apt/sources.list error

> In general, I think you need to read the APT-HOWTO. It's easily findable > on the Debian web site or via Google. Just downloaded it, and will follow your suggestion. Thanks. Haines -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECT

Re: apt/sources.list error

On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:07:53PM -0500, Haines Brown wrote: > Colin, sorry to be so dense about all this. I write now because I > succeeded by _not_ following your advice :-(, and so naturally would > like to understand why. You did follow my advice; you just didn't realize it. :) > The actual

Re: apt/sources.list error

Colin, sorry to be so dense about all this. I write now because I succeeded by _not_ following your advice :-(, and so naturally would like to understand why. The actual path to the backported wood postfix file is: http://people.debian.org/~hmh/woody/hmh/ postfix/p

Re: apt/sources.list error

On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 06:44:29PM -0500, Haines Brown wrote: > One option would be to say that "woody" represents the distribution, > and then I specify the component holding the postfix file as a path: > > 1. deb http://people.debian/org/~hmh woody /hmh/postfix > > But perhaps since it is a pat

Re: apt/sources.list error

> > On 22 Jan 2004, Haines Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > but apt-get install fails to see the package: > > > > $ sudo apt-get install postfix=2.0 > > > > To get the specified version, I had to specify it, but doing it this > > way results in the error that package not found. I tried 2.0.1

Re: apt/sources.list error

On 22 Jan 2004, Haines Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > but apt-get install fails to see the package: > > $ sudo apt-get install postfix=2.0 > > To get the specified version, I had to specify it, but doing it this > way results in the error that package not found. I tried 2.0.16 > also. It seem

Re: apt/sources.list error

> > > I'm running woody, but need to install a backport of postfix. So I > > > added to /etc/aptsources.list the line: > > > > > > deb http://people.debian.org/~hmh/woody/ hmh/postfix/ > > > > This sounds strange, should be /etc/apt/sources.list. Are you sure > > about the line? hmh/postf

Re: apt/sources.list error

On 22 Jan 2004, Philipp Weis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 22 Jan 2004, Haines Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > W: Couldn't stat source package list > > http://people.debian.org hmh/postfix/ Packages > > (/var/lib/apt/lists/people.debian.org_%7ehmh_woody_hmh_postfix_Packages) > >

Re: apt/sources.list error

> > I'm running woody, but need to install a backport of postfix. So I > > added to /etc/aptsources.list the line: > > > > deb http://people.debian.org/~hmh/woody/ hmh/postfix/ > > This sounds strange, should be /etc/apt/sources.list. Are you sure > about the line? hmh/postfix/ sounds s

Re: apt/sources.list error

On 22 Jan 2004, Haines Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm running woody, but need to install a backport of postfix. So I > added to /etc/aptsources.list the line: You probably mean /etc/apt/sources.list. > deb http://people.debian.org/~hmh/woody/ hmh/postfix/ [...] > When I run & sudo aptit

Re: apt/sources.list error

Em Qui, 2004-01-22 Ãs 16:48, Haines Brown escreveu: > I'm running woody, but need to install a backport of postfix. So I > added to /etc/aptsources.list the line: > > deb http://people.debian.org/~hmh/woody/ hmh/postfix/ This sounds strange, should be /etc/apt/sources.list. Are you sur

Fwd: Re: apt sources.list problem

Just checked and there already is a bug filed against the apt package on this. See: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=156739 FJP -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: Re: apt sources.list problem Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:45:50 +0100 From: Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTEC

Re: apt sources.list problem

Pigeon wrote: On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 11:30:02PM +1100, Rob Weir wrote: On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 06:53:55PM +0530, Bhushan Kulkarni wrote: Hi , I am using Debian Woody 3.0 r1 .My problem is below when i cat /etc/apt/sources.list it shows me following output # CDROMs are managed through the

Re: apt sources.list problem

On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 11:30:02PM +1100, Rob Weir wrote: > On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 06:53:55PM +0530, Bhushan Kulkarni wrote: > > Hi , > > I am using Debian Woody 3.0 r1 .My problem is below > > when i cat /etc/apt/sources.list it shows me following output > > > > # CDROMs are managed through

Re: apt sources.list problem

On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 09:38:27PM +1100, Rob Weir wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 07:45:50PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > > No, seems like it is a bug in apt-cdrom. Same happens on my box with > > CD images downloaded with Jigdo from official Debian mirror. > > unstable is symlink to woody, so in th

Re: apt sources.list problem

On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 07:45:50PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > No, seems like it is a bug in apt-cdrom. Same happens on my box with CD > images downloaded with Jigdo from official Debian mirror. > unstable is symlink to woody, so in the end it does not make any difference, > but it is confusing (es

Re: apt sources.list problem

No, seems like it is a bug in apt-cdrom. Same happens on my box with CD images downloaded with Jigdo from official Debian mirror. unstable is symlink to woody, so in the end it does not make any difference, but it is confusing (esp. to newbies). See also my earlier reply to this thread. FJP On

Re: apt sources.list problem

On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 06:53:55PM +0530, Bhushan Kulkarni wrote: > Hi , > I am using Debian Woody 3.0 r1 .My problem is below > when i cat /etc/apt/sources.list it shows me following output > > # CDROMs are managed through the apt-cdrom tool. > deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 r1 _Woody_ - O

Re: apt sources.list problem

I was confused by this as well at first. However, if you mount the cdrom and do 'ls -l dists', you get -r--r--r--1 root root 314 Dec 19 01:33 TRANS.TBL lr-xr-xr-x1 root root5 Dec 19 00:13 frozen -> woody dr-xr-xr-x3 root root 2048 Dec 19 00:14 p

Re: apt sources.list

> Hi all, > is there a definitive list for apt's source.list file. Specifically I > want the lines pertaining > to potato but I can't seem to fine a list anywhere for any distribution. > I assume sombody must maintain > a list. Is there a way to find out what archives are available through >