Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Hi,
2012-03-10 10:00 Sven Joachim:
2. Insert some logic to not mark packages violating the multiarch
lockstep requirement, thereby avoiding invoking the resolver and the
resulting status messages.
Option 2 is easy, but personally I'd like to avoid it because it is
On 2012-03-10 04:17 +0100, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
On 10 March 2012 00:42, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
Would be
interesting to see what apt-get does if the dist-upgrade does not
require removing essential packages.
I have included output from apt-get in this situation.[1]
It seems
On 10 March 2012 18:00, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
On 2012-03-10 04:17 +0100, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
However, the output of the programs does differ. Aptitude
safe-upgrade reports that it can not resolve the dependency problems
(correct), and that the user should try using the full
On 2012-03-10 14:53 +0100, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
On 10 March 2012 18:00, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
On 2012-03-10 04:17 +0100, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
However, the output of the programs does differ. Aptitude
safe-upgrade reports that it can not resolve the dependency problems
On 10 March 2012 22:17, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
On 2012-03-10 14:53 +0100, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
Your original report only had the two
out-of-sync gcc packages available, which, of course, can not be
upgraded.
Right, because I made the mistake of running
aptitude
On 2012-03-09 04:16 +0100, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
On 9 March 2012 03:09, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.5-1
User: multiarch-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: multiarch
A few days ago there was a situation where libgcc1:amd64 was at a newer
version
On 2012-03-09 05:19 +0100, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
On 9 March 2012 11:16, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 March 2012 03:09, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.5-1
User: multiarch-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: multiarch
A few days ago
On 10 March 2012 00:39, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
You can record the state using aptitude-create-state-bundle.
Of course, silly me.
That will contain enough info to reproduce it at a later date.
Hopefully it does, the experience in #655483 was not so great. Would
you be
On 10 March 2012 00:42, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
Would be
interesting to see what apt-get does if the dist-upgrade does not
require removing essential packages.
I have included output from apt-get in this situation.[1]
It seems that both programs do the same thing here:
1. mark
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.5-1
User: multiarch-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: multiarch
A few days ago there was a situation where libgcc1:amd64 was at a newer
version than libgcc1:i386, and aptitude was unable to perform a
safe-upgrade for this case (the correct solution is not to
On 9 March 2012 03:09, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.5-1
User: multiarch-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: multiarch
A few days ago there was a situation where libgcc1:amd64 was at a newer
version than libgcc1:i386, and aptitude was unable to
On 9 March 2012 11:16, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 March 2012 03:09, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.5-1
User: multiarch-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: multiarch
A few days ago there was a situation where libgcc1:amd64 was at a
12 matches
Mail list logo
