Matthias Julius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthias Julius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2) multiarch has a problem with changelogs in library packages. It
must be possible to insall libc6:i386 and
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthias Julius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2) multiarch has a problem with changelogs in library packages. It
must be possible to insall libc6:i386 and libc6:amd64. If both contain
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 1/2/07, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/2/07, Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 04:28:59PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
On 1/2/07, Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2) multiarch has a problem with changelogs in library packages. It
must be possible to insall libc6:i386 and libc6:amd64. If both contain
/usr/share/doc/libc6/changelog then that gives a file conflict in
dpkg. Having the changelog in libc6-common
Matthias Julius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2) multiarch has a problem with changelogs in library packages. It
must be possible to insall libc6:i386 and libc6:amd64. If both contain
/usr/share/doc/libc6/changelog then that gives a file conflict in
On 1/2/07, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/2/07, Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 04:28:59PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
On 1/2/07, Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not have an extra /usr/share/doc/$source-name directory
Hi,
I find it wasteful to install the same changelogs (both Debian and
upstream) in binary packages which share the same sources. Why not
have symlinks in place of these and perhaps an extra /usr/share/doc
directory named the same as the source package in case a binary
package of the same name
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 03:44:10PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
Hi,
I find it wasteful to install the same changelogs (both Debian and
upstream) in binary packages which share the same sources. Why not
have symlinks in place of these and perhaps an extra /usr/share/doc
directory named
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 03:44:10PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
I find it wasteful to install the same changelogs (both Debian and
upstream) in binary packages which share the same sources. Why not
have symlinks in place of these and perhaps
On 1/2/07, Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 03:44:10PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
Hi,
I find it wasteful to install the same changelogs (both Debian and
upstream) in binary packages which share the same sources. Why not
have symlinks in place of these
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 04:28:59PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
On 1/2/07, Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 03:44:10PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
Hi,
I find it wasteful to install the same changelogs (both Debian and
upstream) in binary
On 1/2/07, Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 04:28:59PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
On 1/2/07, Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not have an extra /usr/share/doc/$source-name directory in case a
binary package of the same name doesn't exist or
12 matches
Mail list logo
