e
> new e2fsprogs to not work on systems with the old e2fsprogs? Assuming
> that's the case...
>
> I don't think it should be a problem if you just upload e2fsprogs 1.26
> (same package, new version). It'll take 20 days of unstable users beating
> on it before it&#
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 06:11:27PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 12:01:12PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > So I suppose it won't be OK, then... better provide an alternative
> > > package ?
> >
> > Better to not provide an alternative.
>
> Woops, wrong wording :) Sure !
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 12:01:12PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > So I suppose it won't be OK, then... better provide an alternative
> > package ?
>
> Better to not provide an alternative.
Woops, wrong wording :) Sure !
Replaces/Conflicts/Provides
--
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 05:41:11PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 02:07:43AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 10:39:25AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > > e2fsprogs 1.26 is out, including fixes for one but tagged important,
> &
On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 02:07:43AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 10:39:25AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > e2fsprogs 1.26 is out, including fixes for one but tagged important,
> > ext3-related fixes, reiserfs support in fsck, and more complete
> > suppo
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 10:39:25AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> e2fsprogs 1.26 is out, including fixes for one but tagged important,
> ext3-related fixes, reiserfs support in fsck, and more complete
> support for filesystems in >2GB files.
>
> I suppose it is too late to get th
e2fsprogs 1.26 is out, including fixes for one but tagged important,
ext3-related fixes, reiserfs support in fsck, and more complete
support for filesystems in >2GB files.
I suppose it is too late to get this one in base, so I can package it
in an e2fsprogs-1.26 package if needed. However,
7 matches
Mail list logo
