Le Wednesday 04 May 2011 à 07:58 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> In fact only the second one is really needed. dpkg deals correctly
> with
> upgrade of libimobiledevice1.
Ok, thank you for the clarification :) The update is in progress.
Regards,
Julien Lavergne
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
On Tue, 03 May 2011, Julien Lavergne wrote:
> Btw, I understood that I need to keep the Replaces: libimobiledevice2 in
> libimobiledevice2, right ? Because without it, there will be a error
> when the upgrade will happen ?
Hum, typo I guess. You need "Replaces: libimobiledevice1" in
libimobiledevi
Le Tuesday 03 May 2011 à 08:14 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>
> It looks like this did not happen... can I help by sponsoring an
> update?
>
> The plan is drop the Conflicts/Replaces in libimobiledevice1 and add a
> "Replaces:
> libimobiledevice1" in libimobiledevice2.
The changes was made
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011, Julien Lavergne wrote:
> Le Monday 18 April 2011 à 21:27 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > First of all, I wanted to suggest to drop the Conflicts and just keep the
> > Replaces. The Replaces is enough, the only problem is that the FDI file
> > will be lost if
Le 22 avr. 2011 à 08:07, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2011, Julien Lavergne wrote:
>> Le Monday 18 April 2011 à 21:27 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> First of all, I wanted to suggest to drop the Conflicts and just keep the
>>> Replaces. The Replaces is enough, t
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011, Julien Lavergne wrote:
> Le Monday 18 April 2011 à 21:27 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > First of all, I wanted to suggest to drop the Conflicts and just keep the
> > Replaces. The Replaces is enough, the only problem is that the FDI file
> > will be lost if
Le Monday 18 April 2011 à 21:27 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> First of all, I wanted to suggest to drop the Conflicts and just keep the
> Replaces. The Replaces is enough, the only problem is that the FDI file
> will be lost if libimobiledevice2 is removed while some application
> st
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Depending on that, even staging a transition in experimental doesn't
> make sense at this point. Basically we're screwed until upstream is done
> breaking things :)
Ok, but can we at least get rid of the Conflicts in the mean time
and use only a Replaces
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hi,
>> The multiarch requirements aren't relevant here, as the file is
>> installed in /etc and is identical regardless of the architecture the
>> package is built for. So the overlap will be handled by dpkg. That is,
>> if the wiki page is accurate.
>
> The file is in /us
Hi,
First of all, I wanted to suggest to drop the Conflicts and just keep the
Replaces. The Replaces is enough, the only problem is that the FDI file
will be lost if libimobiledevice2 is removed while some application
still use libimobiledevice1 (the other cases are correctly handled by dpkg
whate
Hi,
> So there will be other similar cases and I doubt the ftpmasters will
> reject them. Their concerns should not forbid us to do the right thing
> in terms of library packaging.
Another argument against this solution was the need for the package to
go twice in NEW (1 with the creation of the -
On 04/18/2011 07:18 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Well, we can't bin-nmu in experimental
oh. yes, we can.
--
Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي
http://dogguy.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debi
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> I NACKed that because the package would be ridiculously small and this
>> is/has been a cause of REJECT.
>
> Well with multiarch shortly ahead of us it's more and more important for
> lib* packages to have only the library files and not any sort of support
> file.
The m
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> I NACKed that because the package would be ridiculously small and this
> is/has been a cause of REJECT.
Well with multiarch shortly ahead of us it's more and more important for
lib* packages to have only the library files and not any sort of support
file
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> If the FDI file can be shared between both versions of the library (which
> I guess), then you should put it in a -common package and have that
> package "Replaces" the old version of libimobiledevice1 /
> libimobiledevice2 that provide this file. Of course you should add
reopen 620065
thanks
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Julien Lavergne wrote:
> libimobiledevice (1.1.0-3) experimental; urgency=low
> .
>* debian/control:
> - Add Conlicts / Replaces on libimobiledevice1 and libimobiledevice0,
> since
> they provide the same fdi file. LP: #753015, Closes: #62
On 12/04/2011 18:21, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
> which was filed against the libimobiledevice2 package:
>
> #620065: libimobiledevice2: file conflict with libimobiledevice1
>
> It has been closed by Julien Lavergne .
Unless yo
17 matches
Mail list logo
