On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 06:51:34PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > > But it's also overly aggressive, since it forces 'a' version 2 to be
> > > unpacked first, *before* unpacking package 'b' - in which case, what do
> > > we need the Replaces: for at a
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 06:51:34PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > But it's also overly aggressive, since it forces 'a' version 2 to be
> > unpacked first, *before* unpacking package 'b' - in which case, what do
> > we need the Replaces: for at all? This is really a workaround for the
> > fact tha
Steve Langasek writes:
> If you install 'a' version 1, then install 'b' version 2, then /remove/
> 'b' version 2, 'a' remains in 'configured' state but is now missing some
> files because ownership of the files transferred to package 'b'.
> If Package: b declares Conflicts: a (<< 2) at the same
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 05:55:57PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> One thing that I would like to explain in Policy, but for which I
> personally don't know the reason and would like someone else to explain to
> me first (*grin*), is why we use Conflicts along with Replaces here. What
> happens if on
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> usertags 578852 proposal
Bug#578852: clarify installation of package having reverse-Replaces
User is r...@debian.org
There were no usertags set.
Usertags are now: proposal.
> merge 578852 578854
Bug#578852: clarify installation of package having r
Stuart Prescott writes:
> The discussion for #572253 has resulted in the following inclusion in
> policy (to be released as 3.8.5):
>>
>> +For example, if a package foo is split
>> +into foo and foo-data
>> +starting at version 1.2-3, foo-data should
>> +h
Hi!
The discussion for #572253 has resulted in the following inclusion in policy
(to be released as 3.8.5):
>
> + For example, if a package foo is split
> + into foo and foo-data
> + starting at version 1.2-3, foo-data should
> + have the field
> +
Thijs Kinkhorst writes:
> On sneon 12 Juny 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> +
>> + These fields contain a list of files with a checksum and size
>> + for each one. Both Checksums-Sha1
>> + and Checksums-Sha256 have the same syntax and differ
>> + only
On sneon 12 Juny 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> +
> + These fields contain a list of files with a checksum and size
> + for each one. Both Checksums-Sha1
> + and Checksums-Sha256 have the same syntax and differ
> + only in the checksum algorithm used:
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tag 547272 + patch
Bug #547272 [debian-policy] policy 5.6.16 - Format field: Is it really 1.5?
Added tag(s) patch.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
547272: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.c
tag 547272 + patch
thanks
Le Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 03:23:57PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> I'm planning to upload Policy 3.8.5 next weekend (the delay being some
> time to make the necessary updates to Lintian and hopefully release both
> together). Please let me know if anyone sees any problem
11 matches
Mail list logo
