On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 03:20:20PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
> If there were more than one package per architecture providing this
> virtual package, then the dependency would need to be adjusted to
> provide consistent behavior. But at first blush, we don't seem to be
> there.
Yes, that's pret
This one time, at band camp, Matthias Klose said:
> Debian Bug Tracking System writes:
> > As far as I can tell there is no actual bug here: the lib64c-dev
> > provides exists in unstable and the dependency appears to do what I was
> > expecting it to do.
>
> yes, but you are required to depend on
Debian Bug Tracking System writes:
> As far as I can tell there is no actual bug here: the lib64c-dev
> provides exists in unstable and the dependency appears to do what I was
> expecting it to do.
yes, but you are required to depend on a real package as well, not
just only on a virtual package.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 04:43:40AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Package: lib64z1-dev
> Severity: serious
> Version: 1:1.2.3-6
> s/lib64c-dev/lib64c6-dev/
Could you clarify what the problem you're reporting here is, please? As
far as I can tell the current packages are installable with just th
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 04:43:40AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> s/lib64c-dev/lib64c6-dev/
The version of glibc in unstable seems to disagree with that one (not
that it matters too much given your subsequent message).
--
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."
Package: lib64z1-dev
Severity: serious
Version: 1:1.2.3-6
s/lib64c-dev/lib64c6-dev/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
6 matches
Mail list logo
