Hi,
2015-09-20 20:20 Vincent Lefevre:
I'd don't consider this "grave" at all, as it neither "makes the
package in question unusable or mostly so", nor "causes data loss",
nor "introduces a security hole allowing access to the accounts of
users who use the package".
Well, then it should be
Hi,
On 2015-09-21 12:43:08 +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> The website also says:
>
> http://www.debian.org/releases/
>
> unstable
>
> The unstable distribution is where active development of Debian
> occurs. Generally, this distribution is run by developers and those
> who
(I am replying to clarify some points, but I am not going to continue
arguing about this).
2015-09-21 13:40 GMT+01:00 Vincent Lefevre :
> Hi,
>
> On 2015-09-21 12:43:08 +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
>> The website also says:
>>
>>
On 2015-09-21 14:11:13 +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> 2015-09-21 13:40 GMT+01:00 Vincent Lefevre :
> > Basically, two things are said:
> >
> > 1. Some packages cannot be installed (for some period), which is OK
> >for me, and this cannot be avoided.
>
>
Control: severity -1 important
Control: tag -1 + moreinfo unreproducible
Hi Vincent,
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Note that I use the following option:
>
> Aptitude::ProblemResolver::SolutionCost "removals";
>
> so that packages don't get removed.
Which IMHO clearly says "you may prefer downgrades
On 2015-09-20 16:27:39 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > Note that I use the following option:
> >
> > Aptitude::ProblemResolver::SolutionCost "removals";
> >
> > so that packages don't get removed.
>
> Which IMHO clearly says "you may prefer downgrades over removals".
6 matches
Mail list logo