On Fri, November 25, 2005 6:08 am, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Max Bowsher wrote:
I'm preparing a new Apache 2 release, and want to include a conf.d
arrangement to allow additional module packagess to install
configuration fragments in a useful way.
So far, my tentative
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Max Bowsher wrote:
I'm preparing a new Apache 2 release, and want to include a conf.d
arrangement to allow additional module packagess to install
configuration fragments in a useful way.
So far, my
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Morrison wrote:
On Fri, November 25, 2005 6:08 am, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Max Bowsher wrote:
I'm preparing a new Apache 2 release, and want to include a conf.d
arrangement to allow additional module packagess to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Jari Aalto on 11/24/2005 9:40 AM:
wget -nv\
http://cygwin.cante.net/tinyirc/tinyirc-1.1-1.tar.bz2.sig \
http://cygwin.cante.net/tinyirc/tinyirc-1.1-1.tar.bz2 \
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Hi,
I have selected some packages checked in the partial view which packages
are active, then when installation strted several packages were
installed which were not selected. E.g. autoconf, automake related and
such.
Since I explicitely excluded these form upgrade
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Hi,
I have selected some packages checked in the partial view which packages
are active, then when installation strted several packages were
installed which were not selected. E.g. autoconf, automake related and
such.
Since I explicitely
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
I have selected some packages checked in the partial view which packages
are active, then when installation strted several packages were
installed which were not selected. E.g. autoconf, automake related and
such.
Since I explicitely excluded these form upgrade
Dave Korn wrote:
Or you could untick the box that says Install these packages to meet
dependencies. Did that screen not appear?
Yes, now after I have started it the second time to fix the broken
installation, I see this checkbox for the very first time. Not really
a good place for a
Brian Dessent wrote:
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
I have selected some packages checked in the partial view which packages
are active, then when installation strted several packages were
installed which were not selected. E.g. autoconf, automake related and
such.
Since I explicitely excluded
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
be nice. And maybe make it optional, that is not checked by default.
Pardon me for being blunt, but that's absurd. The whole point of adding
that screen was that users kept managing to select a package and then
deselect required dependencies somehow, ending up with a
Brian Dessent wrote:
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
be nice. And maybe make it optional, that is not checked by default.
In the vast majority of cases continuing with missing dependencies is
the wrong thing to do, so why should it be the default? Why should the
default reflect a use case that is
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Previously there was no nag. I deslected some important package and
was lost. Now a hint is displayed, one could tell the user: There
are important packages missing in your selection, do you really want
to be that stupid? To add these packages automatically hit the
12 matches
Mail list logo
