[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#716757: marked as done (libapt-pkg4.12: Something is wrong with apt-get/aptitude update)



Your message dated Sat, 13 Jul 2013 14:57:47 +0200
with message-id <CAAZ6_fDEH-PyDdFxA3vSeGZ5Z4Yt1TKYp-5Mhsb9pqiwBvGbYw@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#716757: libapt-pkg4.12: Something is wrong with apt-get/aptitude update
has caused the Debian Bug report #716757,
regarding libapt-pkg4.12: Something is wrong with apt-get/aptitude update
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
716757: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=716757
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: libapt-pkg4.12
Version: 0.9.9.1
Severity: normal

The command apt-get/aptitude update doesn’t fetch the list of available
packeges anymore after updating to libapt-pkg4.12 (version 0.9.9.1). With
version 0.9.8.2 everthing works fine.




-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'proposed-updates'), (500, 'oldstable-updates'), (500, 'oldstable-proposed-updates'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (500, 'oldstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 3.9-1-686-pae (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Marc Matzen <marcmatzen@gmx.de> wrote:
> The command apt-get/aptitude update doesn’t fetch the list of available
> packeges anymore after updating to libapt-pkg4.12 (version 0.9.9.1). With
> version 0.9.8.2 everthing works fine.

Thanks for sending me the data I had asked for!

The problem here is that you have a lot of cruft in your sources.list(s):
Some of the domains aren't online anymore (these are the errors of the form:
 "Verbindung mit example.org:ftp nicht möglich:") and some others are still
online, but not in the form as they were than you added them – one is e.g. a
domain parking side now returning for any request the same file, which APT
isn't expecting and recently learned to identify and complain about
(rather than mess-up its internal storage which would need manual cleanup),
and this complain is the error you see at the end:
E: GPG-Fehler: http://example.org sid InRelease: Clearsigned file
isn't valid, got 'NODATA' (does the network require authentication?)

(I have again replaced the actual domain with example.org as I don't want
 to generate links to a domain parking site – it would just help their shady
 business model)


You should really check if
a) all the sources you have configured actually still exist and
b) contain what you actually want/need
If they fail this test, remove them.

If third-party repositories remain you should check if they provide keys
which you can import into APT to ensure that you really get what you asked
for and what these repositories provide and not what a bad guy might want
to trick you into installing (this will "fix" the remaining "W: GPG-Fehler"
 and also APT asking you at package install time if you want to allow the
 installation of unauthentificated sources will be gone).

The general take-home advice is: You should never ignore errors and
warnings as they are (usually) not shown for their entertainment value. ;)


As this isn't a bug (but a feature™) I will close this bugreport now.
If you have further question I would like to suggest asking them on a
debian-user mailinglist (available in many languages) as those have a
bigger audience than the buglist of APT.


Best regards

David Kalnischkies

--- End Message ---

Reply to: