* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-29 07:21]: > Well, note that I don't consider removal of the existing octave2.9 packages > to clear it up. The octave3.0 Provides: is still wrong, either because this > package does not provide identical functionality or because it's proof of a > gratuitous name change that breaks most of the existing > reverse-dependencies.
Sure, the "Provides: octave2.9" will be dropped and all the reverse-dependencies will be updated in order to work with octave3.0 (see the bugs blocking #457675). As I wrote before, we are in a transition phase. Hopefully the dust will settle down soon. Anyway, thanks for the heads up. -- Rafael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]