On 10/17/2017 3:31 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
On 10/17/2017 2:43 PM, Jon Turney wrote:
On 16/10/2017 20:13, Ken Brown wrote:
This reverts (the rest of) commit b43b697. Part of that commit was
already reverted in commit ff0bb3d. The rest is not needed either
since we no longer send the upgrade flag
On 10/18/2017 11:20 AM, Achim Gratz wrote:
subversion-perl: A version control system (perl bindings)
I've uploaded new subversion packages.
--
David Rothenberger daver...@acm.org
On 10/18/2017 3:01 PM, David Rothenberger wrote:
Name: David Rothenberger
Package: subversion
BEGIN SSH2 PUBLIC KEY
ssh-rsa
Name: David Rothenberger
Package: subversion
BEGIN SSH2 PUBLIC KEY
ssh-rsa
On 10/18/2017 2:20 PM, Achim Gratz wrote:
I've just uploaded the files for the update of Perl to version 5.26 to
sourceware. Unfortunatley only a single other package has been staged
there (znc), so we need to wait for the rest of the maintainers to do
their uploads.
Please upload your
I've just uploaded the files for the update of Perl to version 5.26 to
sourceware. Unfortunatley only a single other package has been staged
there (znc), so we need to wait for the rest of the maintainers to do
their uploads.
Please upload your packages to sourceware _without_ the !ready
Ken Brown writes:
> In retrospect, I'm not sure this patch is right, but I'm sending it
> anyway for the sake of discussion. My hesitation comes from the fact
> that libsolv might have a good reason for preferring the one it chose,
> e.g., if we've assigned priorities to the repos. On the other
If:
- extracting a file failed AND --no-replaceonreboot was used
- OR, writing the .new file for replacing on reboot failed
we don't advance to the next file in the archive, so we just sit there,
trying the same operation repeatedly.
Yes, this seems to mean that --no-replaceonreboot never worked
On 10/18/2017 11:28 AM, Ken Brown wrote:
Similar considerations apply to the other public member functions of
SolvableVersion. So my inclination is to go with something like my
patch...
...with perhaps one tweak. Maybe we should test 'id' rather than
'pool', since id being 0 is what's used
On 10/17/2017 2:46 PM, Jon Turney wrote:
On 17/10/2017 13:44, Ken Brown wrote:
On 10/10/2017 7:18 AM, Ken Brown wrote:
On 9/29/2017 4:33 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
I'll resume my testing after I return.
I've just started testing (based on the current HEAD of
topic/libsolv), and so far everything
When a package (with specified version) is contained in multiple
repositories, we register in packagemeta the last one we see. But if
libsolv decides that the package needs to be installed, its solution may
arbitrarily specify one from a different repo. This caused me some
confusion when
11 matches
Mail list logo
