This came from the slang1 maintainer. Apparently its simply a matter of rebuilding the packages that want slang1 << 1.3.
----- Forwarded message from Jim Mintha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 23:21:22 +0100 From: Jim Mintha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: slang1 (<< 1.3) weirdness Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from Michael G Schwern on Mon, Dec 06, 1999 at 04:45:00PM -0500 Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, Dec 06, 1999 at 04:45:00PM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote: > Oh dear, I'm an idiot. I just realized that dselect was warning me > -not- to upgrade slang because of the dependency problem with > upgrading. Still, will I have to perpetually hold slang1 back? There was a problem with the slang 1.2.x packages that created the wrong dependency < 1.3 when you created a package with them. I uploaded a corrected 1.2.2-3 and got everyone to recompile their slang dependent packages. As far as I know all the packages have been recompiled, but perhaps they are not yet build for powerpc. Jim -- Jim Mintha Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] System Administrator Work: +31 20 525-4919 Informatiseringscentrum Home: +31 20 662-3892 University of Amsterdam Debian GNU/Linux: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _There are always Possibilities_ http://jim.ultralinux.org ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern /(?:(?:(1)[.-]?)?\(?(\d{3})\)?[.-]?)?(\d{3})[.-]?(\d{4})(x\d+)?/i
