Creating a local apt repository?
Greg Trounson
gregtr at es.co.nz
Sun Dec 28 21:02:48 UTC 2003
Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, Greg Trounson wrote:
>
>
>>Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Greg Trounson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Gidday,
>>>>
>>>>Not strictly Fedora-centric, but if I can get it working under RH9, I
>>>>plan to deploy it to my Fedora machines.
>>>>
>>>>Since I'm on a dial-up connection, I have copied the complete set of RH9
>>>>rpms into one directory on my machine in an attempt at creating a local
>>>>mirror for apt.
>>>>
>>>>I have run
>>>>"genbasedir --flat --bloat --bz2only --partial --progress
>>>>/mainarchive/redhat9 localrpms"
>>>>on this directory, and the appropriate pkglist.localrpms.bz2 etc have
>>>>been created in /mainarchive/redhat9/base.
>>>>I have added
>>>>"rpm file:/apt/ /mainarchive/redhat9 localrpms"
>>>
>>> ^^^^^
>>>
>>>If the directory is /mainarchive/redhat9 then that's what you have to use
>>>as the path, eg "rpm file:/mainarchive redhat9 localrpms" is what you
>>>should use for that - you can't invent parts of the path and have apt find
>>>whatever you intended :)
>>>
>>
>>Thanks, using that syntax got it working!
>>
>>Apt still has gnumeric, evolution and about 50 other essential programs
>>marked as 'broken' and wants to remove them before doing anything.
>>
>>I was hoping that pointing apt to a local archive, showing that those
>>programs *are* in fact okay to have installed, would have fixed it.
>
>
> No, that's got nothing to do with apt considering something broken: there
> are some missing dependencies on your system and apt, by it's design,
> requires 100% coherency of the package database.
>
> Have you tried "apt-get -f install" to fix the situation? And if that's
> the "wants to remove 50 packages" thing you should look at the output of
> "apt-get -o debug:pkgproblemresolver=1 -f install" to see *why* it wants
> to remove those packages and then resolve that issue one way or another.
> If you can't figure it out, mail the output here or to me personally and
> I'll have a look at what it's about.
>
> Oh and btw - one potential cause is that you're using apt-0.5.15cnc4 on
> RH9 which has a known problem of treating Epochs differently than rpm on
> RH9, can be worked around by adding "--promoteepoch" to RPM::Options
> configuration item or by upgrading to apt-0.5.15cnc5.
>
Ah, stting the Options section of /etc/apt/apt.conf to
{"--promoteepoch";} fixed it.
I thought it was strange that apt wanted to remove, then reinstall
several key packages...
thanks for the tip,
Greg
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list