On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 11:27:34AM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> There's also the problem that if a meta package removes a dependency
> in a later version, that package will still stay of the system with
> the current implementation.
Is this really a problem? It could be perfectly OK to sim
Le dimanche 04 décembre 2011 à 23:47 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow a
écrit :
> The reasoning being that both metapackages and transitional packages
> should have their dependencies marked as non-automatic so they don't get
> removed when the top package is removed.
>
> I think mixing the two types
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 08:21:50AM +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Quoting Goswin von Brederlow (goswin-...@web.de):
> > Joerg Jaspert writes:
> >
> > > metapackages, which is for metapackages so that apt can do special
> > > handling on them.
> >
> > On IRC Joerg mentioned that
Quoting Goswin von Brederlow (goswin-...@web.de):
> Joerg Jaspert writes:
>
> > metapackages, which is for metapackages so that apt can do special
> > handling on them.
>
> On IRC Joerg mentioned that transitional packages could/should also go
> to the metapackages section.
oldlib
On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 11:47:30PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert writes:
>
> > metapackages, which is for metapackages so that apt can do special
> > handling on them.
>
> On IRC Joerg mentioned that transitional packages could/should also go
> to the metapacka
Joerg Jaspert writes:
> metapackages, which is for metapackages so that apt can do special
> handling on them.
On IRC Joerg mentioned that transitional packages could/should also go
to the metapackages section.
The reasoning being that both metapackages and transitional packages
s
6 matches
Mail list logo
