* Adam Heath
| On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
|
| apt invokes dpkg on the command line and due to maximum command
| line length it sometimes is split in an unfortunate place.
|
| This will be fixed once dpkg is librarified.
|
| Er, no, it won't.
Please follow my
On 20050301T144403+, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 20050301T122452+0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
apt invokes dpkg on the command line and due to maximum command line
length it sometimes is split in an unfortunate place.
I'll repeat what
On 20050301T195602+0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Well, but why should a self-dependency be ever necessary?
A self-dependency is an oxymoron, since a package cannot be
simultaneously unconfigured and configured. For that reason, a
self-dependency is always a no-op (as I wrote earlier, it is harmless
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:13 -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
| On 20050228T204520+, Andrew Suffield wrote:
| On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:49:41PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
| On 20050228T164806+, Andrew
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* Adam Heath
| On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
|
| apt invokes dpkg on the command line and due to maximum command
| line length it sometimes is split in an unfortunate place.
|
| This will be fixed once dpkg is librarified.
|
|
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 09:59 -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
Er, hardly. libdpkg will contain *extremely* low-level stuff.
Reading/writing debs(ar/tar/gzip/bzip/checksum stuff).
No, that's in libdeb (or libdpkg-deb, haven't quite decided the name of
it, yet).
If you'd bothered to pay any attention
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Er, hardly. libdpkg will contain *extremely* low-level stuff.
Reading/writing debs(ar/tar/gzip/bzip/checksum stuff). It won't contain
higher-level anything.
The active development seems to disagree with you...
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 10:16:53PM +0100, Osamu Aoki wrote:
apt invokes dpkg on the command line and due to maximum command line
length it sometimes is split in an unfortunate place.
This will be fixed once dpkg is librarified.
Er, no, it won't.
That part of dpkg is not set
On 20050228T204520+, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:49:41PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On 20050228T164806+, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Unfortunately apt breaks the code. If you use dpkg directly it'll
work. If you use apt it'll pick a random and
* Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
| On 20050228T204520+, Andrew Suffield wrote:
| On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:49:41PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
| On 20050228T164806+, Andrew Suffield wrote:
|Unfortunately apt breaks the code. If you use dpkg directly it'll
|work. If you use
On 20050301T122452+0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| Doesn't apt usually unpack all packages first and then configure them in
| one run, so that shouldn't matter?
|
| dpkg does the same thing
|
| So how does apt break it but using dpkg doesn't?
apt invokes dpkg on the command line
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 04:20:38PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On 20050301T122452+0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| Doesn't apt usually unpack all packages first and then configure them
in
| one run, so that shouldn't matter?
|
| dpkg does the same thing
|
| So how
Scripsit Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 20050301T122452+0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
apt invokes dpkg on the command line and due to maximum command line
length it sometimes is split in an unfortunate place.
I'll repeat what I wrote above:
Doesn't apt usually unpack all
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
| On 20050228T204520+, Andrew Suffield wrote:
| On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:49:41PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
| On 20050228T164806+, Andrew Suffield wrote:
|Unfortunately apt breaks the code. If you
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
On 20050227T214242+0100, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
My understanding is that a self-depending package must be configured
before it can be configured, which makes it unconfigurable, and hence
uninstallable. And I think the same reasoning can be
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 12:13:56PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
| On 20050228T204520+, Andrew Suffield wrote:
| On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:49:41PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
| On 20050228T164806+,
Nicolas Boullis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Trying to upgrade a woody system to sarge, I experienced problems
upgrading libgtk2.0-0, and discovered that this packages was
self-depending. Afetr forcing the upgrade with dpkg -i --force-depends,
everything went smoothly. So I filed a bug against
On 20050227T214242+0100, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
My understanding is that a self-depending package must be configured
before it can be configured, which makes it unconfigurable, and hence
uninstallable. And I think the same reasoning can be applied to
circular dependencies. But Loic
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:51:13 +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dpkg tries to break the
cycle at the least problemous point, for example configuring a package
with no postinst first.
Does it? The last time I was faced with that issue, the starting point
chosen was random and
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 11:58:14AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Does it? The last time I was faced with that issue, the starting point
chosen was random and unpredictable.
It does. (I've hacked the code.)
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 12:06:06PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 11:58:14AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
Does it? The last time I was faced with that issue, the starting point
chosen was random and unpredictable.
It does. (I've hacked the code.)
Unfortunately apt
On 20050228T164806+, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Unfortunately apt breaks the code. If you use dpkg directly it'll
work. If you use apt it'll pick a random and unpredictable starting
point.
Doesn't apt usually unpack all packages first and then configure them in
one run, so that shouldn't
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
What's the bug number?
http://bugs.debian.org/296175
--
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Neutral President: I have no strong feelings one way or the other.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:49:41PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
On 20050228T164806+, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Unfortunately apt breaks the code. If you use dpkg directly it'll
work. If you use apt it'll pick a random and unpredictable starting
point.
Doesn't apt usually unpack
Hi,
Trying to upgrade a woody system to sarge, I experienced problems
upgrading libgtk2.0-0, and discovered that this packages was
self-depending. Afetr forcing the upgrade with dpkg -i --force-depends,
everything went smoothly. So I filed a bug against libgtk2.0-0.
Then I discovered that I
25 matches
Mail list logo
