Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Doesn't that indicate that libpam-ldap *does* have an appropriate > versioned dependency, which you violated by versioning your local > package with an epoch that's not present in the Debian archive?
Probably. > The shlibs system of shared library handling in Debian depends on > monotonically increasing version numbers for packages; representing > your library as a "newer" version of an existing Debian package, when > it lacks symbols that have been added in later upstream versions, > breaks this constraint, but that doesn't make the package's > dependencies incorrect. Make sure the same isn't true for the original submitter. The problem is definitely a library conflict between libldap2 of the era 2.0.23 v.s. the newer libpam-ldap. -- Chad C. Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 247 Gortner Hall http://www.umn.edu/~ccw Help: 612-625-9284 http://cbs.umn.edu/main/ComputingServices Phone: 612-624-2918 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
