Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm pretty new to sysadmin, and I'm trying to install the UltraMonkey load-balancer on Debian 6.0 - Squeeze.

The installation instructions for Debian Sarge say to edit sources.list:

deb http://www.ultramonkey.org/download/3/ sarge main
deb-src http://www.ultramonkey.org/download/3 sarge main

I tried this, but when I do apt-get install ultramonkey I get Unable to locate package ultramonkey.

I then tried editing the sources to:

deb http://www.ultramonkey.org/download/3/ squeeze main
deb-src http://www.ultramonkey.org/download/3 squeeze main

But still the same issue.

Does anyone know how to adapt this for Squeeze, or is the answer basically 'You can't install UltraMonkey on Squeeze'?

share|improve this question
    
A general remark only partially related to my answer: Did you issue an apt-get update command after editing sources.list? If not, apt doesn't even know about the packages from the additional repositories. –  SvW Nov 18 '11 at 12:38
    
I hadn't, thanks for checking :) But I just tried it with the squeeze version of the source and got W: Failed to fetch http://www.ultramonkey.org/download/3/dists/squeeze/main/source/Sources.gz 404 Not Found. Then I tried editing it back to sarge, running apt-get update again, and got a slightly different error: GPG error: http://www.ultramonkey.org sarge Release: The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY XXXXX. Do I need to do something with my public key? –  Richard Nov 18 '11 at 12:58
add comment

1 Answer

Debian Sarge was 3.1, after that came 4, 5 and now 6. You shouldn't even try installing such an old package to a new system (and it's highly likely it won't work at all).

Generally, I would consider a project which has its last release in 2007 as dead and look for other alternatives.

If you insist, you will have to install it from the source code, but this is likely quite involved and nothing for a beginner.

share|improve this answer
    
You mean 2005. But you are absolutely right to go an alternative route. –  mailq Nov 18 '11 at 23:58
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.