On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 14:29:47 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> How could a package declare "I need at least kernel 2.6.39"?
You can't, and shouldn't, do that (at least until after the wheezy
release).
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a s
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 02:29:47PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> tags 609300 +patch
> thanks
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 06:30:41PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >...
> > This is wrong on so many levels.
> > 1. There is no way to declare relations to 'all kernel packages'.
>
> Why not?
>
> How cou
tags 609300 +patch
thanks
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 06:30:41PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>...
> This is wrong on so many levels.
> 1. There is no way to declare relations to 'all kernel packages'.
Why not?
How could a package declare "I need at least kernel 2.6.39"?
(I know that self-compiled ke
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 06:41:59PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 03:45:58PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 16:04 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > Package: linux-image-2.6.39-2-amd64
> > > Version: 2.6.39-3
> > > Severity: serious
> >
> > This is not RC f
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 03:45:58PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 16:04 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Package: linux-image-2.6.39-2-amd64
> > Version: 2.6.39-3
> > Severity: serious
>
> This is not RC for the kernel.
"Upgrade makes another package completely unusable when not
5 matches
Mail list logo
