On Fri, February 6, 2009 07:53, John Vivirito wrote:
> This is not a updatre-manager bug it is a repo bug. seems as if the
> index wasnt updated on the repo.
not true. the repo is fine, but update-manager(1) isn't doing [the
equivalent of] an "apt-get update". it's using out-of-date data, and
claiming surprise when it doesn't get what it (incorrectly) expects.
> We also dont support unofficial repos.
whose policy is that?
> And
> we dont support Debian binaries installing on Ubuntu as there can be big
> issues with depends.
On Fri, February 6, 2009 07:53, John Vivirito wrote:
> This is not a updatre-manager bug it is a repo bug. seems as if the
> index wasnt updated on the repo.
not true. the repo is fine, but update-manager(1) isn't doing [the
equivalent of] an "apt-get update". it's using out-of-date data, and
claiming surprise when it doesn't get what it (incorrectly) expects.
> We also dont support unofficial repos.
whose policy is that?
> And
> we dont support Debian binaries installing on Ubuntu as there can be big
> issues with depends.
that's not relevant to this bug.
-- www.jessies. org/~enh/
Elliott Hughes, http://