I was running dpkg-scanpackages to construct a custom apt source. This was the first time I really ran it, so I encountered the peculiar style that I had to conform to.
This was what I had to write to make a Packages file in a flat dir: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/public_html/debian$ dpkg-scanpackages . override ./ >Packages This is a line from the output Packages file: Filename: ././ddclient_2.3.1-1_all.deb And this is the line required to indicate it as an apt source deb http://borg/~exa/debian/ ./ IMHO, this is all wrong. In the first one, the clumsy ./ is redundant, working directory can, and _should_, be assumed for the third argument. In the second, the output is redundant, it should simply be ddclient_2.3.1-1_all.deb and in the third one, the ./ is redundant, it should be regarded as default. And I was amazed at the fact that you need to provide both Packages and Packages.gz for some strange reason. I think apt-get should check if there is a Packages.gz, and if it isn't present fallback to Packages For which of these should I file bugs? Please don't tell me that these are the way they should be, they are obviously counter-intuitive and must be fixed. It shouldn't be difficult for the authors of apt, anyway. Thanks, -- ++++-+++-+++-++-++-++--+---+----+----- --- -- - - + Eray "exa" Ozkural . . . . . . + CS, Bilkent University, Ankara ^ . o . . | mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] . ^ . .
