On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:24:29 +0100 Ian Jackson
wrote:
> Josh Triplett writes ("Bug#746578: More systemd fallout :-/ [and 1 more
> messages]"):
> > Assuming that apt does the right thing with the dependencies reversed,
> > yes. I outlined several specific scenari
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 05:24:29PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> We know that with such a dependency apt won't install systemd-shim if
> systemd is /already/ installed. That leaves the upgrade case. During
> upgrade the change in dependency may result in systemd-shim being
> installed as well as sy
Josh Triplett writes ("Bug#746578: More systemd fallout :-/ [and 1 more
messages]"):
> Assuming that apt does the right thing with the dependencies reversed,
> yes. I outlined several specific scenarios in my response to Steve's
> mail, which someone ought to test with a
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:31:51 +0100 Ian Jackson
wrote:
> Josh Triplett writes ("Bug#746578: More systemd fallout :-/"):
> > On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:34:48 +0100 Ian Jackson
> > wrote:
> > > As I understand it from reading the threads in the bug and on
> > > debian-devel, the effect of this would b
Josh Triplett writes ("Bug#746578: More systemd fallout :-/"):
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:34:48 +0100 Ian Jackson
> wrote:
> > As I understand it from reading the threads in the bug and on
> > debian-devel, the effect of this would be:
...
> The latter two points are not actually accurate. I just
5 matches
Mail list logo
