Some debug options like:
-o Debug::pkgDepCache::Marker=1 -o Debug::pkgProblemResolver=1
might give you some hints what the difference between the two is.
I must note though that I have carefully stayed away from ever touching
dselect-related functionality in APT as dselect predates my Debian usage
The code doesn't allow switching protocols with a redirect so far, so its not a
bug as such, but a missing feature.
https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/apt/ubuntu/view/head:/methods/http.cc#L993
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is sub
** Package changed: apt (Ubuntu) => bash-completion (Ubuntu)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1218180
Title:
apt-get remove/purge autocomplete bug
To manage notifications about this bu
The patchset applied in ubuntu for the gcc5 transition wasn't complete;
I thought that it would have been synced back by now, but it seems not…
– I had added a few more changes on top of Michaels changes (including
the one Kiwinote referred to) to make it not only build, but also build
something pa
I haven't seen a crash myself, just "garbage" results (mostly apt trying
to use Translation-rowf%&$ files), but in all likelihood this is the
result of gcc5 changing to a c++11-compatible std::string implementation
– which the previous copy-on-write implementation isn't. apt was
depending on this b
Yeah, relatively recent in its very visible form, but a relatively old problem
in its cause.
Fixed in upstream git for a while, but thanks to diverting branches
(abi-breakfree unstable and abi-breaking experimental) it hasn't reached a
(non-experimental) release yet:
http://anonscm.debian.org/cg
per links can only be concluded that a ever-growing amount of webservers
and proxies prefer to violate a must requirement in the HTTP/1.1 spec
(rfc2616 section "8.1.2.2 Pipelining" second sentence: "A server MUST
send its responses to those requests in the same order that the requests
were received
And I don't want epochs to exist. And I want all filesystems to support
":" in filenames. And I want a million dollars and world peace – but the
world doesn't work that way.
apt needs to save the file with an epoch to know the difference between
version 1 and version 1:1. And it has to store it en
> Does this issue have a CVE assigned yet? Does it have a Debian
bugreport yet?
It has neither and it needs neither in my humble opinion.
The longid issue had its own bugreport in Debian (#754436) which used the
included patch (more or less) for Jessie while the 1.1 series (at that time
already
> * presence of '| network-manager-dbg'
network-manager-dbg depends on network-manager and this dependency is
or'ed, so what is wrong about that?
> * presence of connman (connman is a conflicts of network-manager)
If we/apt talks about dependencies, we usually mean all of them as
enumerating al
I try to update the symbols files regularly, but I admit that I don't do
it often (enough) and others aren't particularly better. Looks like the
version which ended up in ubuntu was particularly bad in this regard.
Well maintained c++ libraries are already hard to write a symbols file
for as Russ
It's indeed silly to disable recommends, but many people insist on doing
it instead of insisting on package maintainers to use recommends
properly for the benefit of all.
APT installs recommends since Debian Lenny (no idea what animal that
would be in Ubuntu) by default. Especially, it isn't shipp
Well, there is a magical word which helps in getting everything you want
and the word is: "patch", but I don't see one here… doesn't seem THAT
important after all it seems.
That recent reporters all complain about Translation-* files is btw only
possible because not all repositories (read: nobody
So, you are saying that it is okay to run scripts which are no longer
maintained? And that we should help script writers to write scripts
which are not maintained but should not fail in the future (at least not
in an obvious way)? Those are the same "helpers" run with --yes (and
sometimes --force-y
apt-get install '^(libreoffice-l10n|aspell|hunspell|mythes)-(pt|pt-BR)$'
And as you was already told, erroring out if a package you explicitly
requested for install is a graceful default – and the only sensible
choice as what is the alternative: Implicitly ignoring explicit
requests?
--
You rece
Please run:
sudo apt-get update -o Debug::pkgAcquire::Worker=1 2>&1 | tee
/tmp/apt-1236258-update-with-debug.log
and attach the resulting /tmp/apt-1236258-update-with-debug.log to the
bugreport.
Mentioning the exact sources.list line you are using to configure the mirror
would help to.
Its a ra
Not a bug. Being architecture all or architecture any is a property of
the version as a package can change from any to all (and back) between
versions. The stanzas in the extended file refer to all versions
instead, which means that arch:all is the same as arch:native, so this
is correct.
Also, wh
Sounds to good to be true, right?
Well, the message is from dpkg and it is the right number as it is talking
about ALL files installed on your system via a package, so this number only
changes if you install/remove a package. Your system is pretty lightweight
though. Mine says (in german, but th
This isn't a bug as such, its a design decision acted out.
If not requested otherwise, APT is installing for each package the version with
the highest preference. No implicit derivations: This makes it as predictable
as it is required for a low-level tool.
If you want mylib version 1 instead of
A package which requires an older version of another package to function
correctly needs to be fixed to work with newer versions. Older versions
of packages include bugs and security issues fixed in newer versions;
would you really like it if your package manager installs packages in
versions which
If you wait a bit longer the fix for apt-ftparchive is 3 years old:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=567343
That is rev 1875.1.95 in bzr and what pabs refers to as until recently (minus
the time needed to get this onto ftp-master box of course) as far as I know.
And of course @md
(I should have read all mails before answering some)
Setting to incomplete as I have no idea where you get that idea from.
Can you please elaborate?
For history proposes, copy from
https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/1078697/comments/15:
"And of course @mdeslaur, apt-get source does more t
Thanks for the report! Thankfully not that big of an issue as SHA512
isn't widely adopted in the APT-world and SHA256 "good enough" for now.
apt-pkg/acquire-item.cc has the same issue in pkgAcqArchive::QueueNext()
and therefore effecting all downloads expect the ones where a hash is
forced. Theory
This commit should prevent apt-ftparchive to generate Checksum-listings
which just includes the dsc file and nothing else (General mode of
operation: It copies the Checksum-listings from the dsc file and adds
the dsc file to it). So that would explain the diveintopython example
(if diveintopython.d
That "apt-get upgrade" behaves this way as it wants to be VERY careful
and breaking a recommendation is not a safe operation. Consider
situations in which A=1 and B=1 are installed and A recommends B >= 1.
Now A=2 enters the archive with B >=2 as recommendation. Upgrading A now
would mean we break
(*-quantal sounds like a hack rather than a good solution, but so it be
…)
Attached patch should prefer installing an other architecture of a M-A:
same package (for the lake of a sensible term, lets call it sibling) if
at least one architecture-sibling is already installed over everything
else. As
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 1130419 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1130419
** This bug is no longer a duplicate of bug 1130714
apt doesn't handle multi-arched provides properly
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 1130419
apt resolver doesn't do sensible things when
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 1130419 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1130419
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 1130419
apt resolver doesn't do sensible things when satisfying a cross-dependency
on a virtual package (steam, wine)
--
You received this bug notificatio
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 1130419 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1130419
** This bug is no longer a duplicate of bug 1130714
apt doesn't handle multi-arched provides properly
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 1130419
apt resolver doesn't do sensible things when
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 1130419 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1130419
** This bug is no longer a duplicate of bug 1130714
apt doesn't handle multi-arched provides properly
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 1130419
apt resolver doesn't do sensible things when
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 1130419 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1130419
** This bug is no longer a duplicate of bug 1130714
apt doesn't handle multi-arched provides properly
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 1130419
apt resolver doesn't do sensible things when
> We should perhaps add a test case too ...
Indeed. Polished a bit over mine and attached it now. All tests are
happy with my patch, but they tend to be rather simple so I would have
been more surprised if not.
Beware: The CompareProviders functoid the patch modifies isn't present
for too long; I
Theoretically
apt-get remove ".*:*"
(quotes so your shell isn't trying to expand it) would remove every package
from your system.
apt-get install ".*"
on the other hand would install every available package (in the "best"
architecture) on your system.
(apt-get uses regex, not globbing)
Both is
Wait, you are complaining that you can install MORE packages now?
That's a feature, not a bug and for example needed to be able to install
flash in ubuntu (cleanly - i should add).
If you don't want this, see apt.conf APT::Architectures or configure
dpkg (--foreign-architecture). Either way, thes
Given that the bugtool claims it is likely a fresh install and all
suggested packages are either multiverse and/or non-free are you sure
that you actually have the sources activated to get these packages?
It works for me and it is used in a passing testcase for #806274 so it
is surely not a no-op
It's dpkg printing these lines, but as the file has this name on disc
it's not a bug either way (we can question how useful this information
is, but that should be discussed with the people behind dpkg)
We could question now why APT prefers to store files without some
special chars in the filename
Any rational for this request beside to have another option?
As a rational to set it as invalid as long as no good reason exist:
* It can never be the default
* adds mostly untested/unused codepaths
* everything working with these files needs to check both namestyles, breaking
existing software,
I guess I found the problem. Or in fact two problems, just that the
first hides the second and the second isn't an error condition. In
short: SmartConfigure for an M-A:same package will do a lock-step
configuration for all other ((to be) installed) archs. It just doesn't
check if the package it wa
Thanks for the report!
For the upstream APT release 0.9.6 (and in a broader view the Debian wheezy
release) the manpages were reviewed in Debian by the debian-l10n-english team
and in particular Justin B Rye. This and many other typos and wording issues
were fixed in that process. This work is i
I suspect you are copying instructions from a forum or a blogpost?
It's a common problem in these systems that a doubled 'en dash' --,
which is commonly found in front of options for commands, is auto-
converted to an 'em dash' – if the author of the post isn't careful.
** Changed in: apt (Ubuntu
Smells like: http://anonscm.debian.org/loggerhead/apt/debian-sid/revision/2237
Am I right? This is in apt >= 0.9.7.2 in debian (wheezy) if you wanna test.
You haven't mentioned a version number, but i guess you are on the "newest" in
ubuntu which is 0.9.7.1something.
The diff probably does not ap
Can you elaborate on the configuration used for apt-ftparchive you used?
I can't reproduce it in a self-created testcase (attached) nor with:
# very first mirror i could find with google …
wget
http://mirror1.ku.ac.th/canonical/pool/partner/s/skype/skype_4.0.0.8-0oneiric1_i386.deb
apt-ftparchive
So I tried it again with LongDescriptions in Packages (manual) as well
as split out into Translation-en (testcase) and the spaces are here and
apt-ftparchive has no code to reformat any field (they are either copied
or overridden) so I am a bit lost here.
I suspect there is some tool in the middle
Hi Kath. Please attach your /etc/apt/sources.list so we can have a look.
It seems like the file has invalid entries.
Do you remember editing this file by hand? Or did you used a front-end
to organize your sources or repositories (same thing, different name)
recently? Or did you add PPA's?
--
You
For the record: "Ign" really states for "Ignore", the mentioned file
couldn't be downloaded, but APT used an alternative to satisfy its
needs, so it ignores the failure (Ubuntu doesn't support InRelease yet,
just plans to do it while Debian has it for some branches already, so
APT uses the "old" fi
Nobody said that crossgrades are supported yet, but even then it is not
a problem in APT. A foreign package like perl-base which is not marked
accordingly can't satisfy a dependency for a native packages and v.v. as
it is defined in the spec (I suppose dpkg is equally unhappy about the
current syst
are already trusting the source enough to have it
enabled and therefore get packages from there …
Of course, if the update includes a change to the description you still
need a translation in -updates as we can't display old translations.
apt (0.8.16~exp5ubuntu14) precise; urgency=low
[
In the meantime - as it is fairly obvious that this will not be done
instantly and unlikely to be in time for q-freezes - you might want to
explore solutions similar to bittorrent which are available today with
apt-p2p or apt-transport-debtorrent (as these are by definition hash
based) or setup a s
The option is called: Acquire::http::Proxy, so your setting should be
Acquire::http::Proxy "username:password@proxy.server:80";
Host-specific settings would be Acquire::http::Proxy:: there
is the address of the sources.list entry (e.g. if you have to use
a proxy only for certain parts of the web)
a german
myself… but for bigger changes a review is always a good idea so that
e.g. translations are consistent) and not all translators are subscribed
to the usually rather technical bugreports.
Thanks again and best regards
David Kalnischkies
--
You received this bug notification because you
The idea is that even if the signature can't be checked (= key is not in
the keyring) that we still use the Release file to decide which files to
download (e.g. pdiffs/translations available?) and use the Hashsums for
checking. The later doesn't provide a good trust path, but playing man-
in-the-mi
This change would break usage of tools like 'tee' which multiplex the
output for e.g. logging proposes, so sorry but no. And adding -y should
be a user decision as it is a potentially dangerous option… So double
no.
** Changed in: apt (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this b
This is caused by dpkg stripping the ending dash from the version number in the
Replaces dependency.
Online is:
Replaces: libqwt5-qt4-dev (<< 6.0.0-)
After installation you have in dpkg/status:
Replaces: libqwt5-qt4-dev (<< 6.0.0)
APT therefore detects these two versions as different as they have
> A much better suggestion would be to detect a proxy during install
(most proxies add headers to their reply) and drop a pipeline depth
config into /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/ ... Or perhaps not pipeline the first
request and look for a proxy in the reply, then turn it on.
Its a bit unfair to disable it
Colin is right, its about remapping. WriteUniqString() can cause the
underlying data storage to move. FileI is registered to be rewritten to
accommodate the move, but the compiler already has the address
calculated so the rewrite of FileI is too late.
The line must be split into
map_ptrloc foobar
General:
Limiting a solution to Conflicts would be bad, that should work with Breaks
too, as Conflicts should be avoided like the plague (if we can). And just doing
it on Conflicts (or Breaks) does make it apply to a lot of cases there we don't
want it to happen (think: libfoogtk2-0 conflicts/br
(assuming "David" means me: Better ask Michael Vogt as he is debugging
another https problem at the moment)
That said, step 4 is incorrect, Range answers with an error code of 416. The
behavior described is that of Range with If-Range.
I haven't tested this at all, but browsing documentation make
#6: SHOULD means that there are servers outwhere behaving like that. So we have
to support both. Not that we can ignore should-clauses.
#7: Do I really have to comment that? I am not that good at explaining jokes,
but lets try:
1. APT downloads a part of a file.
2. replaces the file on the server
The patch for the debian bugreport is (obviously) in ubuntu, too. You can
easily confirm this by looking at the version of apt in ubuntu (whichever
release you are using). It is well past 0.7.15 - as long as you are not on a
years old no longer supported release of ubuntu, but i doubt that.
$ ap
I can confirm this as long as APT isn't build with the -std=c++11 flag, too. [0]
The boolean is properly initialized in the (only) constructor to false, so this
doesn't make that much sense.
[0] It fails to build currently, but the fix is simple:
Compiling http.cc to ../build/obj/methods/http.o
Just for the record: APT really supports # as comments as a convenience:
apt (0.7.22) unstable; urgency=low
…
* [ABI break] support '#' in apt.conf and /etc/apt/preferences
(closes: #189866)
…
-- Michael Vogt Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:16:22 +0200
I really don't get why everyone thinks config f
The code isn't throwing errors as it doesn't know if dpkg supports this
option and therefore it is a perfectly fine case to get a non-zero exit
here. At the time the code was written there was simple no way of
detecting it, now there is dpkg --assert-multi-arch but that isn't
supported by all dpkg'
As you have figured out, the message comes from dpkg while unpacking.
dpkg uses his own keyrings for it and adding something like '--require-
valid-signature' will make it hard for users to work with third-party
archives as a key for the maintainer is usually not installed (and is in
general a diff
Do you have 'bash-completion' installed and activated?
Also important: Does /var/cache/apt/pkgcache.bin exists?
If not (or just to be sure) try running 'apt-cache gencaches'.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bu
apt-cache -o APT::Cache::ShowPre-Depends=0 $package
works though, and that's the correct name for the config option (as it is
written with this dash everywhere else too).
But don't worry, even i got that wrong while implementing it… --pre-
depends acts on the config option without dash - obviousl
While this is an interesting bug, it will be fixed by a somehow
unrelated fix in newer versions (do not stop FindDir/File on empty
parent).
Note through, that you have misread the documentation:
Quoting your quote:"caches can be turned off by setting their names to be
blank".
So what you want to
(2) should be a message from dpkg, so reassign there, but typography
rules change between languages, so this might be an issue in the
translation instead.
(In the untranslated text in the code the ellipse is usually '...'
(three dots in a row) while in a translation you could use the 'real'
charac
> (I had to use the online version as the changelog installed by the
package is unfortunately truncated.)
(You can use 'apt-get changelog' to acquire complete changelogs. We (as
in APT team) do not truncate the changelog, but I think its the default
in Ubuntu to do this at build-time for a while n
[@wookey: Your last attachment is the same as the first one – I at least
see nothing working in it ;) ]
mhh, I had a little stare-down contest with the resolver in the train now and
it looks like the resolver is trying to satisfy the dependencies of
crossbuild-essential-armhf via arm64 indicated
This is correct as the "1:" in "1:0.99.1" is called an "epoch" which if
not present is "0:" – and a package with a higher epoch is always newer
than any version number with a lower epoch.
** Changed in: apt (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you
Thankfully the bureport doesn't mention the error message(s?) and the
used pastebin is at least behind a login-wall (and provided that I seem
to be unable to get more than an empty page even if I log in with a
launchpad account it might even be limited to employees…).
So, a general remark: wget is
** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #441178
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=441178
** Also affects: apt (Debian) via
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=441178
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
--
You received this bug notification because you a
Mhh, the "Problem with the SSL CA cert (path? access rights?)" is not
from us, it comes from libcurl and I see no change between 0.8.16~exp12
and 0.9.7.5 which could be responsible for this (as the two changes in
this timeframe is a user-agent string change and adding of the Accept:
request-header)
So, what do you suggest? The hint "does the network require
authentication?" is already a wild guess as this can happen for
temporary down servers (e.g. "Down for maintenance"), 'longtime down'
servers (e.g. domain grabber got the domain), the network you are on
requires you to authenticate (first
The apt_preferences manpage says:
1) Note that this [referring to the target release] has precedence over any
general priority you set in the /etc/apt/preferences file described later, but
not over specifically pinned packages.
2) If any specific-form records match an available package version t
Yes, that is indeed the case, but that is mainly the fault of the PPA as
experimental software should by definition not be part of a release. I
know that this kinda contradicts the PPA concept used in the wild (at
least what I am observing from the outside) as stuff is put into a
release-pocket bec
Lets assume for a moment that we really have a memory leak in 'apt-get source'
- which is not unlikely, but are properly not big enough to be noticed… - this
memory leak only exists while 'apt-get source' is running, the kernel will free
all memory requested by any application at the end of its
(how is it possible that my spamfilter eats valid important bugreports,
but mails with strange words (aka tags) added to these bugs are
considered ham…)
So now that i had a short look at it i think we need to change the
lockstep handling introduced to fix debbug 618288 (in APT 0.8.15) a bit
furthe
Using ssize_t doesn't help 32bit systems as ssize_t is only on 64bit
systems larger than an int.
Either way, the issue should be fixed in a newer release of APT, see LP:
#250909 and debians APT version 0.7.26~exp6 for details. It might be
possible that this is not completely fixed for everyone thr
Could you run 'locale' on your machine, please?
I guess your Language setup is mixed up, giving you german messages, but
expecting english.
A good output might look like this:
>>>
$ locale
LANG=de_DE.UTF-8
LANGUAGE=
LC_CTYPE="de_DE.UTF-8"
LC_NUMERIC="de_DE.UTF-8"
LC_TIME="de_DE.UTF-8"
LC_COLLATE=
Progress indicators are these spinning wheels, the digits progressing slowly
from 0 to 100 (%) and all that stuff. As the manpage says quiet level 1
"produces output suitable for logging" thousands of lines saying
Reading package lists... 0%
Reading package lists... 0%
Reading package lists... 1
Changing the meaning of -qq might have worked thirteen or maybe even
teen years ago, now everything (and your dog) depends on that behavior,
so you will make a lot of people and scripts very angry for literally no
reason. As i already said, the complete description of -q is "produces
output suitabl
Thanks for the report. The bug is known and a patch/new upload is in the
backery.
The problem is that you have a stanza in one of your
/etc/apt/preferences(.d/) files which refers to a non-existent package.
Remove or comment out this stanza and APT should work again as usual.
--
You received thi
Can you attach the file /var/lib/apt/lists/archive.ubuntu
.com_ubuntu_dists_natty-updates_main_i18n_Index to the bugreport?
After that you can remove the file from your system and run 'apt-get
udpate' again.
Looks like the file doesn't include what APT had requested for the
internet. That can hap
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 665580 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/665580
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 665580
apt-get automatically starts and uses 100% CPU forever after each boot
* You can subscribe to bug 665580 by following this link:
https://bugs.launchpa
brscan2-0.2.5-1.amd64.deb is not a valid filename for a deb with an
architecture as you configured it.
Its expected to be named brscan2-0.2.5-1_amd64.deb instead.
** Changed in: apt (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
B
Thats done on propose. If you don't like it, just hold the package back,
pin it or give it a different version.
** Changed in: apt (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.lau
These binary packages are all part of the source package firefox. Most
source packages doesn't support it to build just one binary package
instead of all, so this option is not available in APT. You can try it
yourself with dpkg-buildpackage of course, but as said, it will not work
always…
** Chan
The latest incarnation of this in debian is
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=632271
(your referred bugreport is just a report to change the message, which was
done).
This bug is hopefully finally fixed in the version currently sitting in
debian experimental. It would be splendid
It's dpkg who emits this sentence, so lets reassign it.
** Package changed: apt (Ubuntu) => dpkg (Ubuntu)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/810676
Title:
Describes packages as "previous
And how should APT be able to tell a user which repository is missing
without knowing the repository and its content? No sane implementation
of a crystal ball exist so far.
The wine repository in this case should announce which external
repository-dependencies it has so a user can add those, too,
> You could add theavailable package names from the default repos to a
text file which could be pulled down with apt-get update.
Thats the point: universe and multiverse are NOT the default for a
reason. E.g. some packages in multiverse are illegal in some countries.
It's not even completely clear
Have you restarted the shell in which you run APT?
If you have not defined any special settings for APT in its
configuration it will use the information provided by the 'http_proxy'
(and similar for other methods) environment variable, but as long as
this setting isn't changed APT can't use the ne
7; or better '…') isn't useful
in this case as a program can't make the needed mental transformation…
Just in case:
$ apt-cache search yacc
and
$ apt-cache search yacc freebsd
have the expected results.
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
** Package changed: apt (Ubuntu) => free
Shouldn't a backport of revision 1875.3.3 be enough instead of a new
patch?
** Patch added: "apt-1875.3.3.diff"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/714970/+attachment/1837794/+files/apt-1875.3.3.diff
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs
APT just displays the information it got - specifically the VCS- fields
in the package stanzas you can see with "apt-cache show packagename". So
these VCS fields seem to be wrong for software-center… (reassign)
** Package changed: apt (Ubuntu) => software-center (Ubuntu)
--
You received this bug
The listing shows an asseration failure in dpkg:
$ sudo dpkg --configure -a
dpkg: ../../src/packages.c:221: process_queue: Assertion `dependtry <= 4'
failed.
So lets reassign it to dpkg, maybe they have a clue…
(APT at least is doomed to fail if dpkg doesn't work for obvious reasons)
** Package
It is 'sudo apt-get update' to update APTs knowledge about packages and
'sudo apt-get install whatever' there 'whatever' is the name of a
package. You can't execute both commands at the same time and a package
with the name 'update' doesn't exist as the error message tells you.
You should report t
As said, there is not a single command associated with 'sudo apt-get install'.
This is already a command!
A command to install one or more packages.
If you want to run the commands 'update', 'upgrade', 'dist-upgrade'
and/or all the others it's as simple as 'sudo apt-get update', 'sudo
apt-get upg
$ LANG=C apt-get -s install mail-transport-agent
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Package mail-transport-agent is a virtual package provided by:
xmail 1.27-1.1+b1
ssmtp 2.64-4
sendmail-bin 8.14.4-2
qmail-run 2.0.2
postfix 2.8.
101 - 200 of 228 matches
Mail list logo
