Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reduces the memory wasted and speeds up processing in dpkg, dselect,
apt, aptitude, britney, ...
It's also useful for simple humans looking at the dependencies of a
package: having all dependencies, including those on essential packages,
would
Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 04:33:49 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The error is, if you don't *need* a specific version of the package, you
shouldn't depend on it at /all/. Essential means it's always available, so
there's no reason for you to
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 04:33:49 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The error is, if you don't *need* a specific version of the package, you
shouldn't depend on it at /all/. Essential means it's always available, so
there's no reason for you to depend on it.
I have never understood the
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 01:06:08PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 04:33:49 -0700, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The error is, if you don't *need* a specific version of the package, you
shouldn't depend on it at /all/. Essential means it's always available, so
there's
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 02:01:54PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 01:59:05PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
Packages aren't moved out of essential.
So you can guarantee that bash will always be essential?
Certainly not. :-) I'm saying that we don't plan to ever make it
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 02:01:54PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 01:59:05PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
Packages aren't moved out of essential.
So you can guarantee that bash will always be essential?
I believe that we won't ever remove *functionality* from the Essential
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 02:01:54PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 01:59:05PM +0100, Bas Wijnen wrote:
Packages aren't moved out of essential.
So you can guarantee that bash will always be essential?
I believe that we won't ever
Hi everybody,
if I add a dependency on util-linux because I need that /sbin/getty is
installed, why must this dependency be versioned?
If I simply add Depends: util-linux lintian complains loudly and issues
an error message:
depends-on-essential-package-without-using-version depends: util-linux
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 01:29:27PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
if I add a dependency on util-linux because I need that /sbin/getty is
installed, why must this dependency be versioned?
If I simply add Depends: util-linux lintian complains loudly and issues
an error message:
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 01:29:27PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
if I add a dependency on util-linux because I need that /sbin/getty is
installed, why must this dependency be versioned?
If I simply add Depends: util-linux lintian complains loudly and issues
an error
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 04:38:28PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
Sounds reasonable. Thanks for the explanation.
Sometimes I wished lintian would display hints like yours and not only
such short one liners.
The same explanation that Steve gave is found in the Debian Policy
and/or the
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 04:38:28PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
Sometimes I wished lintian would display hints like yours and not only
such short one liners.
Use lintian -i for more verbose output.
Cheers,
Franz
--
Franz Pletz \ A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
www:
Hi,
Sometimes I wished lintian would display hints like yours and not only
such short one liners.
The same explanation that Steve gave is found in the Debian Policy
and/or the developer reference. Hopefully, you have read both of those.
If you use lintian -i you get a more detailed
Franz Pletz wrote:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 04:38:28PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
Sometimes I wished lintian would display hints like yours and not only
such short one liners.
Use lintian -i for more verbose output.
Mea culpa! I indeed missed -i completely. Next time I better learn how
to
14 matches
Mail list logo
