old contents of /var/cache/apt/apt-file/
g.lip at gmx.com
Fri Jul 30 00:23:12 UTC 2010
On 07/30/2010 06:05 AM, NoOp wrote:
> On 07/28/2010 09:53 PM, Goh Lip wrote:
>> On 07/29/2010 02:05 AM, NoOp wrote:
>>> On 07/28/2010 09:52 AM, Goh Lip wrote:
>>>> To just clean out obsolete files and let current files remain,
>>>> apt-get autoclean
>>> That didn't work for the hardy and jaunty files& why I ended up rm'ing
>>> them instead. Tried both '$ sudo apt-get clean' and '$ sudo apt-get
>> Strange again, this (apt-get autoclean) works for me, but copying
>> /var/cache/apt/archives/ did not.
>> Did just that moments ago.
>> Must check if I am on right distro; Ubuntu, right? ;)
>> Regards - Goh Lip
> And you had files like:
> in the archives?
Never. Never had file that have a .gz in /var/cache/apt/archives/
Perhaps a 'partial' for unfinished downloads and a 'lock'.
Try moving it someplace else and check if it performs 'as normal'.
As far as I can tell, the the .gz file should be a listing of all
packages available, in your case, from the us archives of hardy version
i386. Logically, it looks like sometime ago, you may have downloaded all
the packages from the us archives into your /var/cache/apt/archives/ and
with it that .gz file; but that would be a huge download (and would
contradict that logic). So I cannot make any sense why it is there.
But it raises an interesting point. If the .gz file and the
corresponding packages are available in /var/cache/apt/archives/,
copying these (& the .gz file) into other computers'
/var/cache/apt/archives/ will not need the packages to be downloaded
again (provided the repositories are pointing to the same location, like
Then again, if packages are updated in the 'real' us.archives
repository, there would be no way in which computers having that .gz be
able to have any updated package picked up. Still, for computers with no
or very slow internet connection, it is still preferable to have an
'un-updated' package than no package.
Regards - Goh Lip
More information about the ubuntu-users