Re: auto-removal and alternative dependencies

Sven Joachim writes ("Re: auto-removal and alternative dependencies"): > No need to do so, this has been filed[1] quite some time ago already. ... > 1. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=745475 That's a rather unsatisfying bug report. I see people arguing about

Re: auto-removal and alternative dependencies

On 2016-12-31 17:42 +0300, Sergei Golovan wrote: > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort > wrote: >> On 08/12/16 13:02, Daniel Pocock wrote: >>> I have two packages that depend on: nagios3 | icinga >>> >>> nagios3 is being removed[1], but icinga[2] is still

Re: auto-removal and alternative dependencies

Hi! On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 08/12/16 13:02, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> I have two packages that depend on: nagios3 | icinga >> >> nagios3 is being removed[1], but icinga[2] is still available, so why >> can't my packages continue to list

Re: auto-removal and alternative dependencies

Daniel Pocock wrote: >On 08/12/16 16:59, Adam D. Barratt wrote: >> On 2016-12-08 13:08, Andreas Henriksson wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:41:38PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: On 08/12/16 13:35, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Daniel

Re: auto-removal and alternative dependencies

On 08/12/16 16:59, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On 2016-12-08 13:08, Andreas Henriksson wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:41:38PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 08/12/16 13:35, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: >>> > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> [...] >>>

Re: auto-removal and alternative dependencies

On 2016-12-08 13:08, Andreas Henriksson wrote: On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:41:38PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: On 08/12/16 13:35, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: [...] I don't think that clearly addresses the case of alternative

Re: auto-removal and alternative dependencies

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:41:38PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > > On 08/12/16 13:35, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: [...] > > I don't think that clearly addresses the case of alternative dependencies. > > My packages do not

Re: auto-removal and alternative dependencies

On 08/12/16 13:35, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> I have two packages that depend on: nagios3 | icinga >> >> nagios3 is being removed[1], but icinga[2] is still available, so >> why can't my packages continue to list nagios3 as a

Re: auto-removal and alternative dependencies

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote: > I have two packages that depend on: nagios3 | icinga > > nagios3 is being removed[1], but icinga[2] is still available, so why > can't my packages continue to list nagios3 as a possible dependency for > the convenience of those

Re: auto-removal and alternative dependencies

On 08/12/16 13:22, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > On 08/12/16 13:02, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> I have two packages that depend on: nagios3 | icinga >> >> nagios3 is being removed[1], but icinga[2] is still available, so why >> can't my packages continue to list nagios3 as a possible dependency

Re: auto-removal and alternative dependencies

On 08/12/16 13:02, Daniel Pocock wrote: > I have two packages that depend on: nagios3 | icinga > > nagios3 is being removed[1], but icinga[2] is still available, so why > can't my packages continue to list nagios3 as a possible dependency for > the convenience of those people who continue to use

auto-removal and alternative dependencies

I have two packages that depend on: nagios3 | icinga nagios3 is being removed[1], but icinga[2] is still available, so why can't my packages continue to list nagios3 as a possible dependency for the convenience of those people who continue to use it? Regards, Daniel 1.