Debian Bug Tracking System writes:
As far as I can tell there is no actual bug here: the lib64c-dev
provides exists in unstable and the dependency appears to do what I was
expecting it to do.
yes, but you are required to depend on a real package as well, not
just only on a virtual package.
This one time, at band camp, Matthias Klose said:
Debian Bug Tracking System writes:
As far as I can tell there is no actual bug here: the lib64c-dev
provides exists in unstable and the dependency appears to do what I was
expecting it to do.
yes, but you are required to depend on a real
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 03:20:20PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
If there were more than one package per architecture providing this
virtual package, then the dependency would need to be adjusted to
provide consistent behavior. But at first blush, we don't seem to be
there.
Yes, that's pretty
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 04:43:40AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
Package: lib64z1-dev
Severity: serious
Version: 1:1.2.3-6
s/lib64c-dev/lib64c6-dev/
Could you clarify what the problem you're reporting here is, please? As
far as I can tell the current packages are installable with just the
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 04:43:40AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
s/lib64c-dev/lib64c6-dev/
The version of glibc in unstable seems to disagree with that one (not
that it matters too much given your subsequent message).
--
You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever.
Package: lib64z1-dev
Severity: serious
Version: 1:1.2.3-6
s/lib64c-dev/lib64c6-dev/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
6 matches
Mail list logo
