On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 08:59:40PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Stefan Potyra wrote:
> > On Thursday 17 July 2008 15:15:25 Sean McE wrote:
> > > On current packaging there is no way to express the dependency on
> > > upstream version only,
> > [..]
> >
> > actually, there is
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Stefan Potyra wrote:
> On Thursday 17 July 2008 15:15:25 Sean McE wrote:
> > On current packaging there is no way to express the dependency on
> > upstream version only,
> [..]
>
> actually, there is:
> Depends: foo (>= 1.2.1), foo (<< 1.2.1+)
You generally want
Package: ba
Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2008-07-17 20:59 +0200, Hubert Chathi wrote:
>> Stefan Potyra wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> On Thursday 17 July 2008 15:15:25 Sean McE wrote:
>>>
>>> On current packaging there is no way to express the dependency on
>>> upstream version only,
>> [...]
>>
>>> actually, there is:
>>
On 2008-07-17 20:59 +0200, Hubert Chathi wrote:
> Stefan Potyra wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> On Thursday 17 July 2008 15:15:25 Sean McE wrote:
>>>
>> On current packaging there is no way to express the dependency on
>> upstream version only,
> [...]
>
>> actually, there is:
>> Depends: foo (>= 1.2.1), foo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hubert Chathi wrote:
> Stefan Potyra wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> On Thursday 17 July 2008 15:15:25 Sean McE wrote:
>> On current packaging there is no way to express the dependency on
>> upstream version only,
> [...]
>
>> actually, there is:
>> Depends: foo
Stefan Potyra wrote:
> Hi,
> On Thursday 17 July 2008 15:15:25 Sean McE wrote:
>>
> On current packaging there is no way to express the dependency on
> upstream version only,
[...]
> actually, there is:
> Depends: foo (>= 1.2.1), foo (<< 1.2.1+)
This wouldn't work for binNMU'ed packages (in wh
Hi,
On Thursday 17 July 2008 16:17:09 Thibaut Paumard wrote:
[..]
>
> Then I believe the maintainer could do something with the
> dependencies, but I'm not sure what. Setting Conflicts in claws-mail
> on the previous version of the plug-ins would ensure that you don't
> keep installed plug-in that
Le 17 juil. 08 à 16:19, Thibaut Paumard a écrit :
Le 17 juil. 08 à 15:38, Pietro Battiston a écrit :
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thibaut Paumard ha scritto:
I guess you are running unstable: you have to expect those
glitches. It should not happen in testing or stable.
Le 17 juil. 08 à 15:38, Pietro Battiston a écrit :
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thibaut Paumard ha scritto:
I guess you are running unstable: you have to expect those
glitches. It should not happen in testing or stable.
Please forgive my ignorance: why shouldn't it happen
Le 17 juil. 08 à 15:58, Sean McE a écrit :
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:30:08 +0200
Thibaut Paumard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I guess you are running unstable: you have to expect those glitches.
It should not happen in testing or stable. It should not happen in
unstable very often either: apparent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
IANADD
Sean McE wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:30:08 +0200
> Thibaut Paumard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I guess you are running unstable: you have to expect those glitches.
>> It should not happen in testing or stable. It should not happen in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thibaut Paumard ha scritto:
> I guess you are running unstable: you have to expect those
> glitches. It should not happen in testing or stable.
Please forgive my ignorance: why shouldn't it happen in testing?
(I mean: by what control mechanism?)
Pi
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:30:08 +0200
Thibaut Paumard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess you are running unstable: you have to expect those glitches.
> It should not happen in testing or stable. It should not happen in
> unstable very often either: apparently it's only for new upstream
> vers
Hi,
On Thursday 17 July 2008 15:15:25 Sean McE wrote:
>
> On current packaging there is no way to express the dependency on
> upstream version only,
[..]
actually, there is:
Depends: foo (>= 1.2.1), foo (<< 1.2.1+)
>
[..]
> by the current Depends/Conflicts pair may be wider than
[..]
This sou
Le 17 juil. 08 à 15:15, Sean McE a écrit :
First, I'm a user, not a maintainer. I'm in a debate with a package
maintainer that could be endless and so I'd like a your expertise to
help end it. The maintainer is
breaking his own dependant packages with every version change, and he
says that's t
First, I'm a user, not a maintainer. I'm in a debate with a package
maintainer that could be endless and so I'd like a your expertise to
help end it. The maintainer is
breaking his own dependant packages with every version change, and he
says that's the only way to do it. His reason for this is in
16 matches
Mail list logo
