Kurt Roeckx writes:
> My understanding is that the point of virtual packages is so that
> several *can* provide it. But you're now telling 1 package that it
> can't do that, while you instead could say only one (other) package can
> do it in this case.
That's one use of virtual packages. Howev
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:38:15PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In general I worry that your interpretation of resolution texts
> focuses far too much on the exact words used, and far too little on
> the substance of the underlying issues.
>
> In this particular case we have two packages both of wh
* Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [140322 00:39]:
> (resending because of some 8-bit header damage)
>
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#717076: libjpeg draft resolution"):
> > So if you really want to prevent using a supermajority, I suggest
> > you write is so that you at least don't menti
(resending because of some 8-bit header damage)
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#717076: libjpeg draft resolution"):
> So if you really want to prevent using a supermajority, I suggest
> you write is so that you at least don't mention the other package
> by name but make it more general.
Seriously ?
> I
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 05:37:01PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> To the Project Secretary: Ian raised the point that he feels that option
> A should not require 3:1. The "Provides: libjpeg-dev" here is
> essentially a technical device to ensure that packages can declare
> Build-Depends: libjpeg-
5 matches
Mail list logo
