Hello,
Thomas Viehmann t...@beamnet.de (06/01/2009):
Please allow me the liberty of proposing the attached NMU for fixing
#503712 (and opportunistically #510691 now that we know, but I've left
all other dependency stuff out).
If considered desirable, it would be nice if someone could
Hi,
Luk Claes wrote:
Thanks for looking into this! Uploaded ghostscript 8.62.dfsg.1-3.2.
unblocked
Please allow me the liberty of proposing the attached NMU for fixing
#503712 (and opportunistically #510691 now that we know, but I've left
all other dependency stuff out).
If considered
Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Thomas Viehmann [Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:10:36 +0100]:
As promised on IRC, the only way to end the madness of my mails on the
subject is to either say no, no dependency funnies, we want .config
hacks or fixing dependencies is better than .config
* Thomas Viehmann [Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:10:36 +0100]:
As promised on IRC, the only way to end the madness of my mails on the
subject is to either say no, no dependency funnies, we want .config
hacks or fixing dependencies is better than .config hacks, or
something entirely different
22:04
Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Thomas Viehmann [Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:10:36 +0100]:
As promised on IRC, the only way to end the madness of my mails on the
subject is to either say no, no dependency funnies, we want .config
hacks or fixing dependencies is better than .config hacks, or
something
For the latter, it would be cool if
the maintainers of the affected packages,
Vincent for latex-make
Sylvain and David for page-crunch
the Zope guys and Andreas and Fabio for zope-textindexng3
could weigh in here. I'll look at your packages, but if you already know
whether
Hi Sylvain,
thanks for your comments!
Sylvain Beucler wrote:
For the latter, it would be cool if
the maintainers of the affected packages,
Vincent for latex-make
Sylvain and David for page-crunch
the Zope guys and Andreas and Fabio for zope-textindexng3
could weigh in
Thomas Viehmann wrote:
So this is how an NMU choosing the include hack in .config route would
look like.
I'm not quite convinced that this is actually better than having
ghosscript depend on gs-common, gs-common not depend on ghostscript-x
and checking the reverse (build-)depends for
As promised on IRC, the only way to end the madness of my mails on the
subject is to either say no, no dependency funnies, we want .config
hacks or fixing dependencies is better than .config hacks, or
something entirely different, so here is some more data:
Thomas Viehmann wrote:
I'll check the
Hi,
Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Niko Tyni wrote:
Maybe configure script is badly worded: It's most blatant abuse, but
I'd just stick it into a /var/lib/dpkg/info/ghostscript.config
unless there are apt-get-lookalikes that don't call that at the
beginning of an upgrade. If the user produces the
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Niko Tyni wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 02:15:22PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
immediately after I sent the last mail, Sune Vuorela pointed me to
apache2's fix for #390823: They simply remove the problematic maintainer
script.
The question then
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 09:39:20PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Niko Tyni wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 02:15:22PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
immediately after I sent the last mail, Sune Vuorela pointed me to
apache2's fix for #390823: They simply remove the problematic maintainer
Hi,
Niko Tyni wrote:
Maybe configure script is badly worded: It's most blatant abuse, but
I'd just stick it into a /var/lib/dpkg/info/ghostscript.config
unless there are apt-get-lookalikes that don't call that at the
beginning of an upgrade. If the user produces the bad situation with
dpkg
Hi everyone,
you have been involved in #503712
so it's been a while since the last activity here.
contrary to Niko's last mail I propose to live with a circular
dependency and
- make ghostscript depend on gs-common ( -3.2 to be uploaded)
- make gs-common NOT depend on ghostscript-x
unless there
Hi again,
immediately after I sent the last mail, Sune Vuorela pointed me to
apache2's fix for #390823: They simply remove the problematic maintainer
script.
The question then is where to do this in so it is reliably done before
stuff happens.
In one of the perl packages (because the upgrade of
Hi,
I'm the maintainer of latex-make.
Thomas Viehmann wrote:
I will check whether this is a problem for the reverse
build-dependencies and dependencies. For the latter, it would be cool if
the maintainers of the affected packages,
Vincent for latex-make
Sylvain and David
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 02:15:22PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
immediately after I sent the last mail, Sune Vuorela pointed me to
apache2's fix for #390823: They simply remove the problematic maintainer
script.
The question then is where to do this in so it is reliably done before
stuff
Niko Tyni wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 02:15:22PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
immediately after I sent the last mail, Sune Vuorela pointed me to
apache2's fix for #390823: They simply remove the problematic maintainer
script.
The question then is where to do this in so it is reliably
18 matches
Mail list logo
