On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 11:15 +1100, Cameron Hutchison wrote: > dpkg first removes foo-modules_1.0 > dpkg then check dependencies of foo-modules_2.0 > dpkg complains that foo-utils is not installed and aborts the > installation of foo-modules_2.0 > This is incorrect.
dpkg doesn't remove foo-modules_1.0 at all. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
