Control: tag -1 + patch
Hi Jessica,
Quoting Jessica Clarke (2020-07-12 00:54:53)
> Is this not the bug I fixed a while ago and you committed upstream
> recently[1]? There hasn't been a dose3 upload to Debian yet with that fixed.
>
> Jess
>
> [1]
>
On 11 Jul 2020, at 23:47, Johannes Schauer wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I put Jessica and Ralf in CC because they are the solver experts. :)
>
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 18:27:54 +0200 Adam Borowski wrote:
>> This problem can't possibly be caused by elogind. A package may cause a
>> problem only if:
>> 1.
Hi,
I put Jessica and Ralf in CC because they are the solver experts. :)
On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 18:27:54 +0200 Adam Borowski wrote:
> This problem can't possibly be caused by elogind. A package may cause a
> problem only if:
> 1. some of its code is actually run (preinst, postinst, payload), or
>
On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 03:44:21PM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-07-08 at 11:04 +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > What is happening here is, that aspcud chooses libelogind0 for installation
> > and
> > then apt decides that it refuses to install it because it doesn't want to
> > remove
On Wed, 2020-07-08 at 11:04 +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> What is happening here is, that aspcud chooses libelogind0 for installation
> and
> then apt decides that it refuses to install it because it doesn't want to
> remove libsystemd0 in favor of libelogind0 and by that replace an important
Hi,
On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 15:36:56 +0100 Mark Hindley wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 07:43:52PM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-06-30 at 17:45 +0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
> > > I am struggling to understand how libelogind0 came to be installed in the
> > > build
> > > in the first place.
Control: reassign -1 apt-cudf
Dear apt-cudf maintainers,
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 07:43:52PM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-06-30 at 17:45 +0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
> > I am struggling to understand how libelogind0 came to be installed in the
> > build
> > in the first place. Can you help
On Thu, 2 Jul 2020, Ansgar wrote:
> It doesn't as you can see. In reality dependencies don't work as
> simple as "apt will always pick the first choice".
I think this is still true for all distributions except experimental.
But yes, talk to the package managers’ maintainers.
bye,
//mirabilos
On Thu, 2020-07-02 at 16:34 +0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 04:33:36PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Jul 2020, Ansgar wrote:
> > > package), so the problem might also be the `Provides: logind` in
> > > libpam-elogind.
> >
> > Shouldn’t the package dependencies
Control: tags -1 moreinfo
On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 04:33:36PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2020, Ansgar wrote:
>
> > package), so the problem might also be the `Provides: logind` in
> > libpam-elogind.
>
> Shouldn’t the package dependencies on default-logind | logind
> handle
On Thu, 2 Jul 2020, Ansgar wrote:
> package), so the problem might also be the `Provides: logind` in
> libpam-elogind.
Shouldn’t the package dependencies on default-logind | logind
handle this?
Weird…
bye,
//mirabilos
--
15:41⎜ Somebody write a testsuite for helloworld :-)
Control: tag -1 - moreinfo
On Thu, 2020-07-02 at 12:58 +0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 12:35:18PM +0200, Axel Beckert wrote:
> > Is it still the case that the buildds use aptitude for resolving
> > dependencies on experimental builds? Because aptitude might be even
> > more
Control: tags -1 moreinfo
On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 12:35:18PM +0200, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Is it still the case that the buildds use aptitude for resolving
> dependencies on experimental builds? Because aptitude might be even
> more "creative" than apt in that regards.
Thanks. That is one for
Hi,
Mark Hindley wrote:
> > > I am struggling to understand how libelogind0 came to be installed in the
> > > build
> > > in the first place. Can you help me understand that?
> >
> > No idea; apt's resolver is sometimes creative. Other examples include
> > [1], [2], [3].
> >
> > [1]:
> >
Ansgar,
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 07:43:52PM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-06-30 at 17:45 +0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
> > I am struggling to understand how libelogind0 came to be installed in the
> > build
> > in the first place. Can you help me understand that?
>
> No idea; apt's resolver
On Tue, 2020-06-30 at 17:45 +0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
> I am struggling to understand how libelogind0 came to be installed in the
> build
> in the first place. Can you help me understand that?
No idea; apt's resolver is sometimes creative. Other examples include
[1], [2], [3].
[1]:
Ansgar,
Thanks for this.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 06:27:20PM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> Package: libelogind0
> Version: 243.7-1+debian1
> Severity: serious
>
> libelogind0's `Provides: libsystemd0` causes unrelated packages to
> fail to build due to unmet dependencies. See [1] for an example.
>
>
Package: libelogind0
Version: 243.7-1+debian1
Severity: serious
libelogind0's `Provides: libsystemd0` causes unrelated packages to
fail to build due to unmet dependencies. See [1] for an example.
The relevant log part is:
+---
| The following packages have unmet dependencies:
| libelogind0 :
18 matches
Mail list logo
