Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #223369 > unrolled thread

SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is invalid for APT::Default-Release

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is invalid  for APT::Default-Release David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2020-06-12 14:10 +0200
    Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is  invalid for APT::Default-Release David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2020-06-12 15:30 +0200
      Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is  invalid for APT::Default-Release Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-06-12 15:50 +0200
    Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is  invalid for APT::Default-Release Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-06-12 15:50 +0200
      Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is  invalid for APT::Default-Release Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-06-12 17:20 +0200
        Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is  invalid for APT::Default-Release Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-06-12 17:30 +0200
          Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is  invalid for APT::Default-Release Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-06-12 18:10 +0200
            Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is  invalid for APT::Default-Release Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-06-12 18:20 +0200
              Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is  invalid for APT::Default-Release Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-06-12 18:40 +0200
                Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is  invalid for APT::Default-Release Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-06-12 18:40 +0200
                Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is  invalid for APT::Default-Release <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-06-12 18:40 +0200
                  Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is  invalid for APT::Default-Release Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-06-12 18:50 +0200
                    Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is  invalid for APT::Default-Release <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-06-12 19:00 +0200
                  Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is  invalid for APT::Default-Release Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-06-12 19:10 +0200
                  Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is  invalid for APT::Default-Release Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-06-12 19:10 +0200
                    Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is  invalid for APT::Default-Release <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-06-12 19:20 +0200
                      Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is  invalid for APT::Default-Release Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-06-12 19:40 +0200
                        Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is  invalid for APT::Default-Release Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-06-12 20:00 +0200
                Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is  invalid for APT::Default-Release steve <dlist@bluewin.ch> - 2020-06-12 18:50 +0200
          Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is  invalid for APT::Default-Release Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-06-13 11:10 +0200
            Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is  invalid for APT::Default-Release Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-06-13 11:30 +0200
              Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is  invalid for APT::Default-Release Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-06-13 12:00 +0200
                Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is  invalid for APT::Default-Release Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-06-13 12:10 +0200
    Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is  invalid for APT::Default-Release Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-06-12 18:10 +0200
      [solved] Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value  'unstable' is invalid for APT::Default-Release David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2020-06-13 07:40 +0200
        Re: [solved] Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value  'unstable' is invalid for APT::Default-Release <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2020-06-13 10:00 +0200
          Re: [solved] Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value  'unstable' is invalid for APT::Default-Release David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2020-06-23 05:20 +0200
        Re: [solved] Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value  'unstable' is invalid for APT::Default-Release Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-06-13 11:00 +0200
          Re: [solved] Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value  'unstable' is invalid for APT::Default-Release David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2020-06-23 05:20 +0200
        Re: [solved] Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value  'unstable' is invalid for APT::Default-Release Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2020-06-14 15:10 +0200
          Re: [solved] Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value  'unstable' is invalid for APT::Default-Release David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2020-06-23 05:20 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#223421 — Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is invalid for APT::Default-Release

	Hi.

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 12:08:20PM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Vi, 12 iun 20, 18:27:45, Reco wrote:
> > 	Hi.
> > 
> > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:15:26AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 04:40:22PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > > > For "apt source" to work you need to add two lines:
> > > > 
> > > > deb     http://approx:9999/debian/ unstable main contrib non-free
> > > > deb-src http://approx:9999/debian/ unstable main contrib non-free
> > > 
> > > Incorrect.
> 
> Just because it works it doesn't meant it's the "correct" way.

If it works it cannot be called "incorrect" in the first place.
It can be called "dangerous" or "inappropriate", but not "incorrect".


> What if the user gets interrupted and forgets to remove the
> deb..unstable line?

The user can to many dangerous things, starting with, say "rm -rf /*".


> > Try it first (a hint - it works with "apt source").
> > 
> > 
> > >  Do *not* add a "deb" line for unstable to a stable
> > > system.  Only add the "deb-src" line.
> > 
> > And that one too (a hint - it does not).
> 
> It does (as has been demonstrated), just not with '-t unstable'.

It does not work the way OP wanted it to work, which is what matters
here. I agree that the workaround that you've proprosed is cleaner.


> > > Beyond that, the OP is using some local mirror,
> > 
> > Also please do some research on what approx is.
> 
> Without previous knowledge of 'approx' it's pretty difficult to make the 
> connection from some internal host name to a Debian package name.

What good is the advise that's given without understanding the specifics
of OP configuration?


> Your tone appears to be condescending, which I'm sure you didn't mean 
> to.

Most definitely I did not. But as we see, e-mails is not the best media
when it comes to transmitting emotions and tones.

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223425 — Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is invalid for APT::Default-Release

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sb, 13 iun 20, 12:25:55, Reco wrote:
> 	Hi.
> 
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 12:08:20PM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > On Vi, 12 iun 20, 18:27:45, Reco wrote:
> > > 	Hi.
> > > 
> > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:15:26AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 04:40:22PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > > > > For "apt source" to work you need to add two lines:
> > > > > 
> > > > > deb     http://approx:9999/debian/ unstable main contrib non-free
> > > > > deb-src http://approx:9999/debian/ unstable main contrib non-free
> > > > 
> > > > Incorrect.
> > 
> > Just because it works it doesn't meant it's the "correct" way.
> 
> If it works it cannot be called "incorrect" in the first place.
> It can be called "dangerous" or "inappropriate", but not "incorrect".

Can we agree on "dangerous" *and* "unnecessary"? :)

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223426 — Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is invalid for APT::Default-Release

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 12:52:55PM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Sb, 13 iun 20, 12:25:55, Reco wrote:
> > 	Hi.
> > 
> > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 12:08:20PM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > > On Vi, 12 iun 20, 18:27:45, Reco wrote:
> > > > 	Hi.
> > > > 
> > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:15:26AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 04:40:22PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > > > > > For "apt source" to work you need to add two lines:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > deb     http://approx:9999/debian/ unstable main contrib non-free
> > > > > > deb-src http://approx:9999/debian/ unstable main contrib non-free
> > > > > 
> > > > > Incorrect.
> > > 
> > > Just because it works it doesn't meant it's the "correct" way.
> > 
> > If it works it cannot be called "incorrect" in the first place.
> > It can be called "dangerous" or "inappropriate", but not "incorrect".
> 
> Can we agree on "dangerous" *and* "unnecessary"? :)

With the existence of the workaround - yes, definitely.

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223378 — Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is invalid for APT::Default-Release

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Vi, 12 iun 20, 22:02:12, David wrote:
> 
> But step 3 fails:
> $ apt source -t unstable cgdb
> Reading package lists... Done
> E: The value 'unstable' is invalid for APT::Default-Release as such a
> release is not available in the sources
> E: Unable to find a source package for
> $ apt source -t testing cgdb
> Reading package lists... Done
> E: The value 'testing' is invalid for APT::Default-Release as such a
> release is not available in the sources
> E: Unable to find a source package for
> $
> 
> What is wrong, and how do I fix it?

It appears to be a bug in apt:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=441178#75

There are several workarounds mentioned in the bug report, probably 
easiest for you would be to use 'apt source cgdb/unstable'.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223406 — [solved] Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is invalid for APT::Default-Release

Hi, first thank-you to everyone who replied for taking an interest in
assisting me and improving Debian guides. I feel very lucky to have access
to you folks here with expertise and experience plus the goodwill to help
someone without expecting anything in return.

I will summarise and respond to all in this one message.

First, thank-you to AlexandreRossi who has already updated the Debian wiki
page with the fix suggested by Andrei POPESCU. So other readers please note
that the current wiki page is different to the one that prompted my initial
request for help. That older incorrect version of page as it was at my time
of writing can be viewed here:

  https://wiki.debian.org/SimpleBackportCreation?action=recall&rev=73

Thanks to Reco for confirmation that the problem wasn't one of my own
creation (typically it is, because I tend to forget things), and suggesting
adding a deb..unstable line to sources.list with the caution not to run
'apt upgrade'.

In fact this is exactly what I was curious about, because I was attracted
to the wiki method because it appeared to avoid that risk, and so I was
keen to follow the wiki method, and then motivated to ask here why it
apparently worked for the wiki authors but not for me.

Thanks also to Reco for showing me 'sudo apt build-dep cgdb', yes that
worked here.

Thanks to Andrei for locating a relevant bug report
  https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=441178#75
and suggesting this workaround:

  $ apt source cgdb/unstable

I confirm that worked here, thank you!

As an aside, how did you find this, I am very curious, what are people's
methods for searching for bugs? Because over the years I have tried on many
occasions to search at https://www.debian.org/Bugs/ for various things but
I just never feel comfortable with the interface there (eg why is the
search restricted by suite) and I never seem to have much success at
finding anything useful. Does anyone have any tips for successful bug
searching?

Thanks to Greg for warning about the dangers of adding a deb..unstable
line, yes I am aware that can cause a frankendebian disaster.

About a decade ago I spent a couple of years lurking in freenode #bash
where Greg was an amazing contributor, so I have seen what situations
trigger Greg's frustrations when offering assistance. I realise now that
I could have simplified my question by testing and submitting with
a sources list that used deb.debian.org as a server instead of the approx
proxy-cache, but I've been using approx for so long that I just forgot that
it might obfuscate the issue, so I apologise for that.

Greg thanks for providing a worked example, but I was disappointed that you
did not actually test the command given on the wiki page, the one that
failed for me. In your example, you used

  $ apt-get source ksh

How do you know which suite that command downloads the source from?
I found myself wishing that you had tested the command that actually failed
for me in my posted question:

  $ apt source -t unstable cgdb

That's what triggered the bug/error. Does it work for you? I know that you
have an interest in this topic because I saw that you contributed earlier
edits to that wiki page, but they were modified by later contributors.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223413 — Re: [solved] Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is invalid for APT::Default-Release

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 03:30:08PM +1000, David wrote:
> Hi, first thank-you to everyone who replied [...]

> I will summarise and respond to all in this one message.

Well, thank *you* for taking up that work!

[...]

> As an aside, how did you find this, I am very curious, what are people's
> methods [...]  Does anyone have any tips for successful bug
> searching?

Typically, each one has developed her very own and sometimes ugly fuzzball
of information retrieval, which is a feedback loop involving one's own
pattern matching and cognitive machinery. A messy affair which ends up being
deeply personal (and which sometimes leads to heated discussions, but I
disgress ;-)

One method I resort to when I'm somewhat desperate (thanks to Debian for
setting up the bugs database under an own domain, "bugs.debian.org") is
to leverage my favourite search engine's smarts and restricting the
search to the site bugs.debian.org. As an URL, for example

  https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=apt+source+site:bugs.debian.org

Typically I use that method to inject some "noise" in my search process
when it seems stuck in whatever pockets it can't get out of.

Cheers
-- t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223899 — Re: [solved] Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is invalid for APT::Default-Release

On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 at 17:54, <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 03:30:08PM +1000, David wrote:

> > As an aside, how did you find this, I am very curious, what are people's
> > methods [...]  Does anyone have any tips for successful bug
> > searching?

> One method I resort to when I'm somewhat desperate (thanks to Debian for
> setting up the bugs database under an own domain, "bugs.debian.org") is
> to leverage my favourite search engine's smarts and restricting the
> search to the site bugs.debian.org. As an URL, for example
>
>   https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=apt+source+site:bugs.debian.org

Thanks for that good idea.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223418 — Re: [solved] Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is invalid for APT::Default-Release

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sb, 13 iun 20, 15:30:08, David wrote:
> Hi, first thank-you to everyone who replied for taking an interest in
> assisting me and improving Debian guides. I feel very lucky to have access
> to you folks here with expertise and experience plus the goodwill to help
> someone without expecting anything in return.
> 
> I will summarise and respond to all in this one message.

Excellent summary :)
 
> Thanks to Andrei for locating a relevant bug report
>   https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=441178#75
> and suggesting this workaround:
> 
>   $ apt source cgdb/unstable
> 
> I confirm that worked here, thank you!
> 
> As an aside, how did you find this, I am very curious, what are people's
> methods for searching for bugs? Because over the years I have tried on many
> occasions to search at https://www.debian.org/Bugs/ for various things but
> I just never feel comfortable with the interface there (eg why is the
> search restricted by suite) and I never seem to have much success at
> finding anything useful. Does anyone have any tips for successful bug
> searching?

Experience, and in this particular case I also got lucky ;)

I started from:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=apt

and did a text search on 'source'. The subject for the third hit looked 
very much like your problem.

(Note the 'src=apt' which searches for bug packages in the 'apt' source 
package, just in case the bug is some of the other binary packages 
provided by src:apt. It wasn't helpful here here, just something to be 
aware of in general.)

By the way, I only bothered to go looking for a bug because you 
demonstrated the problem quite clearly, i.e. I was pretty sure there was 
something to find.

You helped us help you :)

> How do you know which suite that command downloads the source from?

Very important to remember:

APT will always select the highest version available, *unless* it's  
overridden by pinning[1] or you select a specific version 
('package/release' or 'package=version').

So in practice '-t/--target-release' is necessary to override APT's 
default selection temporarily and for *all* packages to be downloaded 
and/or installed with that command[2].


[1] As per apt-get(8) using -t/--target-release or setting 
APT::Default-Release is the same as pinning that release to 990.

[2] The -t/--target-release option is better suited for getting a 
package *and* its dependencies from a specific release (e.g. backports).  
It could have unintended effects if a package's dependencies can be 
satisfied in either release.

Hope this explains,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223901 — Re: [solved] Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is invalid for APT::Default-Release

On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 at 18:57, Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sb, 13 iun 20, 15:30:08, David wrote:

> > As an aside, how did you find this, I am very curious, what are people's
> > methods [...]  Does anyone have any tips for successful bug
> > searching?

> I started from:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=apt
>
> and did a text search on 'source'. The subject for the third hit looked
> very much like your problem.
>
> (Note the 'src=apt' which searches for bug packages in the 'apt' source
> package, just in case the bug is some of the other binary packages
> provided by src:apt. It wasn't helpful here here, just something to be
> aware of in general.)

Thanks for showing that method, that is helpful and I will note it for
future reference.

> > How do you know which suite that command downloads the source from?

> Very important to remember:
>
> APT will always select the highest version available [...]

Thanks, I had forgotten to remember that apt uses numeric priorities.
Sometimes I need to be reminded of things.

It's explained quite well here:
https://debian-handbook.info/browse/stable/sect.apt-get.html#sect.apt.priorities

> Hope this explains,

Very well, thanks Andrei.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223477 — Re: [solved] Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is invalid for APT::Default-Release

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 03:30:08PM +1000, David wrote:
> Greg thanks for providing a worked example, but I was disappointed that you
> did not actually test the command given on the wiki page, the one that
> failed for me. In your example, you used
> 
>   $ apt-get source ksh
> 
> How do you know which suite that command downloads the source from?

I've seen so many differing instructions for "simple sid backport" that
I can't even remember all of them.  What I used was totally from memory,
and it probably a pastiche of several different suggestions I've seen
over the years.

Whatever issue you're seeing with some new-fangled set of instructions
is probably a more recent artifact.  The steps I followed do not have
those issues.  "apt-get source foo" pulls from the most recent available
deb-src with no issues for me.

I've seen other people who had to do the "apt-get source foo/unstable"
thing but I never dug into the matter to try to figure out what the
underlying cause is.

> I found myself wishing that you had tested the command that actually failed
> for me in my posted question:
> 
>   $ apt source -t unstable cgdb

I don't know anything about that syntax.  Never used it.

I didn't need to specify which deb-src to use, for ksh, at all.

> That's what triggered the bug/error. Does it work for you?

unicorn:/tmp/q$ apt source -t unstable cgdb
Reading package lists... Done
E: The value 'unstable' is invalid for APT::Default-Release as such a release is not available in the sources
E: Unable to find a source package for 

unicorn:/tmp/q$ apt-get source -t unstable cgdb
Reading package lists... Done
E: The value 'unstable' is invalid for APT::Default-Release as such a release is not available in the sources
E: Unable to find a source package for 

unicorn:/tmp/q$ apt-get source cgdb
Reading package lists... Done
Need to get 680 kB of source archives.
Get:1 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian buster/main cgdb 0.6.7-2 (dsc) [1,088 B]
Get:2 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian buster/main cgdb 0.6.7-2 (tar) [674 kB]
Get:3 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian buster/main cgdb 0.6.7-2 (diff) [4,465 B]
Fetched 680 kB in 2s (320 kB/s)
dpkg-source: info: extracting cgdb in cgdb-0.6.7
dpkg-source: info: unpacking cgdb_0.6.7.orig.tar.gz
dpkg-source: info: unpacking cgdb_0.6.7-2.debian.tar.gz
dpkg-source: info: using patch list from debian/patches/series
dpkg-source: info: applying mips_defines.diff
dpkg-source: info: applying manpage.diff
dpkg-source: info: applying texinfo_itemx.diff

unicorn:/tmp/q$ apt-get source cgdb/unstable
Reading package lists... Done
Selected version '0.6.7-2' (unstable) for cgdb
Skipping already downloaded file 'cgdb_0.6.7-2.dsc'
Skipping already downloaded file 'cgdb_0.6.7.orig.tar.gz'
Skipping already downloaded file 'cgdb_0.6.7-2.debian.tar.gz'
Need to get 0 B of source archives.
Skipping unpack of already unpacked source in cgdb-0.6.7

*shrug*  I don't know what's going on there.  cgdb is not a pacakge I'm
familiar with, and according to packages.debian.org, the difference
between the buster and sid versions is very small (0.6.7-2+b4 vs.
0.6.7-2+b5).

That makes it extra hard to see whether something actually worked.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223900 — Re: [solved] Re: SimpleBackportCreation attempt says: The value 'unstable' is invalid for APT::Default-Release

On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 at 23:07, Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 03:30:08PM +1000, David wrote:

> > I found myself wishing that you had tested the command that actually failed
> > for me in my posted question:
> >
> >   $ apt source -t unstable cgdb
>
> I don't know anything about that syntax.  Never used it.
>
> I didn't need to specify which deb-src to use, for ksh, at all.
>
> > That's what triggered the bug/error. Does it work for you?
>
> unicorn:/tmp/q$ apt source -t unstable cgdb
> Reading package lists... Done
> E: The value 'unstable' is invalid for APT::Default-Release as such a release is not available in the sources
> E: Unable to find a source package for
>
> unicorn:/tmp/q$ apt-get source -t unstable cgdb
> Reading package lists... Done
> E: The value 'unstable' is invalid for APT::Default-Release as such a release is not available in the sources
> E: Unable to find a source package for

Thanks for taking another look at that for me, and giving another
example, I appreciate it.
Problem is solved now.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web