On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 10:18:05AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Jul 31 21:44, Andy Koppe wrote: >> On 26 July 2010 09:41, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> > Is the above "The following packages are required to >> > satisfy dependencies of your selection." ok? ??I'm wondering if it's >> > a bit too wordy, but I admit I have no better way to say this. >> >> How about this? >> >> ====== >> Unmet Dependencies Found [in bold] >> The following packages are required to meet dependencies. > >I would prefer "satisfy" instead of "meet". But it doesn't matter. >Just go ahead.
I also find "meet" unsatisfying and think that "satisfy" would be better wording. If you agree and want to meet those requirements then I think we're satisfied and you can check that in. cgf