On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 01:28:13PM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> Also beside that the package manager might be a bit confused, it confuses
> maybe the user who will see that his beloved package oldname will be removed
> in an upgrade to a new version of debian! Its far better in this case to l
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 05:03, Ben Finney wrote:
> When making a new release of a source package that renames one of its
> binary packages, at http://wiki.debian.org/Renaming_a_Package> it
> is asserted “most package managers (including AFAIK apt) do not know to
> replace the old with the new one”
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2011, Ben Finney wrote:
> > at http://wiki.debian.org/Renaming_a_Package> it is asserted
> > “most package managers (including AFAIK apt) do not know to replace
> > the old with the new one”.
[…]
> > In other words: is the dummy transitional binar
Hi,
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011, Ben Finney wrote:
> When making a new release of a source package that renames one of its
> binary packages, at http://wiki.debian.org/Renaming_a_Package> it
> is asserted “most package managers (including AFAIK apt) do not know to
> replace the old with the new one”.
>
>
Howdy mentors,
When making a new release of a source package that renames one of its
binary packages, at http://wiki.debian.org/Renaming_a_Package> it
is asserted “most package managers (including AFAIK apt) do not know to
replace the old with the new one”.
Is that still true of APT? Or does APT
5 matches
Mail list logo