Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> g-wrap (1.9.6-1) unstable; urgency=high >> >> * New upstream version. This nevertheless means no real changes against >> 1.9.5-2, since we already had all of the upstream fixes applied. >> * Ship g-wrap-config in libgwrap-runtime0-dev and make it conflict with >> libgwrapguile-dev. >> * Wrote manpage for g-wrap-config. >> * Fixed wrong conflict of g-wrap with non-existing gwrapguile-dev, >> should be with libgwrapguile-dev, hence increased urgency. > > This last change would seem to be RC as well, but I don't find any files > that conflict between the sarge versions of libgwrapguile-dev and g-wrap, or > between the woody version of libgwrapguile-dev and the sarge version of > g-wrap. Can you explain what this conflict is for? > You are right. There are no file conflicts between libgwrapguile-dev 1.3.4-13 and libgwrap-runtime0-dev 1.9.5-2; that conflict was apparently a packaging artefact. Sorry for bothering you.
Rotty -- Andreas Rottmann | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://yi.org/rotty | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc Fingerprint | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219 F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62 v2sw7MYChw5pr5OFma7u7Lw2m5g/l7Di6e6t5BSb7en6g3/5HZa2Xs6MSr1/2p7 hackerkey.com A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion Q. Why is top posting bad? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
