Il giorno mar, 25/07/2006 alle 18.10 -0700, Russ Allbery ha scritto:
So, are people sure this is not useful even if the package name doubles as
a virtual package? It seems to me like it would be. Or are people just
arguing that that case will never occur?
Conflicts on virtual packages assure
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 01:17:30PM +0200, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
Il giorno mar, 25/07/2006 alle 18.10 -0700, Russ Allbery ha scritto:
So, are people sure this is not useful even if the package name doubles as
a virtual package? It seems to me like it would be. Or are people just
Fabio Tranchitella [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Il giorno mar, 25/07/2006 alle 18.10 -0700, Russ Allbery ha scritto:
So, are people sure this is not useful even if the package name doubles as
a virtual package? It seems to me like it would be. Or are people just
arguing that that case will
Il giorno mer, 26/07/2006 alle 16.48 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow ha
scritto:
Conflicts on virtual packages assure that two real packages providing
the virtual one can't be installed togheter, so let's say:
A: provides D; conflicts D
B: provides D; conflicts D
It is not possible to
Il giorno gio, 27/07/2006 alle 00.22 +1000, Hamish Moffatt ha scritto:
Now extend for more than two packages. Should each package list every
other, require every package to be updated when another is added?
Instead they can all provide and conflict a common virtual package.
It is ok to
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:22:54 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 01:17:30PM +0200, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
A: nothing;
B: provides A; conflicts A
... which produces the same result, because you can't install both A
and B because B conflicts with (the
Fabio Tranchitella [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Il giorno mar, 25/07/2006 alle 18.10 -0700, Russ Allbery ha scritto:
So, are people sure this is not useful even if the package name doubles
as a virtual package? It seems to me like it would be. Or are people
just arguing that that case will
On mer, 26 lug 2006, Russ Allbery wrote:
However, I don't see how the self-conflicts *hurts* anything, and some
people are currently using this technique, probably because it's easier to
remember to always have the Conflits. So what are we gaining by adding a
check for this and making people
Il giorno lun, 24/07/2006 alle 23.22 +0200, Jan C. Nordholz ha scritto:
unison:
Conflicts on unison ( 2.9.1-3)
I guess this is meant to prevent older versions of unison and unison2.9.1
(which Provides: unison) from being installed together (the same holds
for unison-gtk).
If
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
also sprach Fabio Tranchitella [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.07.24.2204 +0100]:
I've noticed that some packages conflict or depend on themself. As far
as I know, this makes no sense and the dependency (of conflict) should
be removed, but I prefer to ask
Fabio Tranchitella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
exim4-config:
Conflicts on exim4-config ( )
This is both a virtual and a real package. (There is just one packags
in Debian providing it.)
cu andreas
--
The 'Galactic Cleaning' policy undertaken by Emperor Zhark is a personal
vision of the
Fabio Tranchitella [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Il giorno lun, 24/07/2006 alle 23.22 +0100, martin f krafft ha scritto:
An upgrade is the same as removing the old and installing the new
package, so other than maintainer script invocations (which will
differ if the old package was removed because
Hello,
I've noticed that some packages conflict or depend on themself. As far
as I know, this makes no sense and the dependency (of conflict) should
be removed, but I prefer to ask here before filing useless bug reports.
This is a list of the packages:
avr-libc:
Conflicts on avr-libc ( )
Hi,
I've noticed that some packages conflict or depend on themself. As far
as I know, this makes no sense and the dependency (of conflict) should
be removed, but I prefer to ask here before filing useless bug reports.
This is a list of the packages:
[...]
unison:
Conflicts on unison
also sprach Fabio Tranchitella [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.07.24.2204 +0100]:
I've noticed that some packages conflict or depend on themself. As far
as I know, this makes no sense and the dependency (of conflict) should
be removed, but I prefer to ask here before filing useless bug reports.
I
* martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060724 23:28]:
also sprach Fabio Tranchitella [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.07.24.2204 +0100]:
I've noticed that some packages conflict or depend on themself. As far
as I know, this makes no sense and the dependency (of conflict) should
be removed, but I
also sprach Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.07.24.2253 +0100]:
Well, what is the reason to conflict on itself? It makes sense for
conflict on provides for virtual packages, but on the real package?
An upgrade is the same as removing the old and installing the new
package, so other than
17 matches
Mail list logo
