On Sat, 15 Jan 2005, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
Santiago Vila wrote:
This way, apt-get upgrade will install libvips-doc without requiring
apt-get dist-upgrade, and this will be done automatically and
without user intervention,
Are you certain of that? My understanding is that apt-get
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
The point I was trying to make is that a libvips-doc which conflicts
and replaces libvips7.10-doc would force the removal of libvips7.10-doc
when doing apt-get dist-upgrade, . . .
I think this may only be
Jay Berkenbilt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The recent thread on names of library packages on debian-devel made me
decide that I made a mistake in naming one of my packages.
Specifically, the vips7.10 source package creates four binary
packages: libvips7.10, libvips7.10-dev, libvips7.10-tools,
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
The recent thread on names of library packages on debian-devel made me
decide that I made a mistake in naming one of my packages.
Specifically, the vips7.10 source package creates four binary
packages: libvips7.10, libvips7.10-dev, libvips7.10-tools,
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
I've read Section 5.9.3 of the developer's reference and understand it
clearly. Is that still the best way to go?
Not always, unfortunately. Very often, the upgrade will be smoother if
you use empty dummy
Santiago Vila wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
I've read Section 5.9.3 of the developer's reference and understand it
clearly. Is that still the best way to go?
Not always, unfortunately. Very often, the upgrade will be smoother if
you use empty dummy packages wisely.
6 matches
Mail list logo
