On mer, 26 lug 2006, Russ Allbery wrote:
> However, I don't see how the self-conflicts *hurts* anything, and some
> people are currently using this technique, probably because it's easier to
> remember to always have the Conflits. So what are we gaining by adding a
> check for this and making peop
Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Il giorno mar, 25/07/2006 alle 18.10 -0700, Russ Allbery ha scritto:
>> So, are people sure this is not useful even if the package name doubles
>> as a virtual package? It seems to me like it would be. Or are people
>> just arguing that that case
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:22:54 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 01:17:30PM +0200, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
>> A: nothing;
>> B: provides A; conflicts A
>>
>> ... which produces the same result, because you can't install both A
>> and B because B conflicts w
Il giorno gio, 27/07/2006 alle 00.22 +1000, Hamish Moffatt ha scritto:
> Now extend for more than two packages. Should each package list every
> other, require every package to be updated when another is added?
>
> Instead they can all provide and conflict a common virtual package.
It is ok to co
Il giorno mer, 26/07/2006 alle 16.48 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow ha
scritto:
> > Conflicts on virtual packages assure that two real packages providing
> > the virtual one can't be installed togheter, so let's say:
> >
> > A: provides D; conflicts D
> > B: provides D; conflicts D
> >
> > It is not p
Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Il giorno mar, 25/07/2006 alle 18.10 -0700, Russ Allbery ha scritto:
>> So, are people sure this is not useful even if the package name doubles as
>> a virtual package? It seems to me like it would be. Or are people just
>> arguing that that case
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 01:17:30PM +0200, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> Il giorno mar, 25/07/2006 alle 18.10 -0700, Russ Allbery ha scritto:
> > So, are people sure this is not useful even if the package name doubles as
> > a virtual package? It seems to me like it would be. Or are people just
> >
Il giorno mar, 25/07/2006 alle 18.10 -0700, Russ Allbery ha scritto:
> So, are people sure this is not useful even if the package name doubles as
> a virtual package? It seems to me like it would be. Or are people just
> arguing that that case will never occur?
Conflicts on virtual packages assu
Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Il giorno lun, 24/07/2006 alle 23.22 +0100, martin f krafft ha scritto:
>> An upgrade is the same as removing the old and installing the new
>> package, so other than maintainer script invocations (which will
>> differ if the old package was removed
Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> exim4-config:
> Conflicts on exim4-config ( )
This is both a virtual and a real package. (There is just one packags
in Debian providing it.)
cu andreas
--
The 'Galactic Cleaning' policy undertaken by Emperor Zhark is a personal
vision of the
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> also sprach Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.24.2204 +0100]:
>> I've noticed that some packages conflict or depend on themself. As far
>> as I know, this makes no sense and the dependency (of conflict) should
>> be removed, but I prefe
Il giorno lun, 24/07/2006 alle 23.22 +0200, Jan C. Nordholz ha scritto:
> > unison:
> > Conflicts on unison (<< 2.9.1-3)
>
> I guess this is meant to prevent older versions of unison and unison2.9.1
> (which Provides: unison) from being installed together (the same holds
> for unison-gtk).
If u
also sprach Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.24.2253 +0100]:
> Well, what is the reason to conflict on itself? It makes sense for
> conflict on provides for virtual packages, but on the real package?
An upgrade is the same as removing the old and installing the new
package, so other than
* martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060724 23:28]:
> also sprach Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.24.2204 +0100]:
> > I've noticed that some packages conflict or depend on themself. As far
> > as I know, this makes no sense and the dependency (of conflict) should
> > be removed,
also sprach Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.24.2204 +0100]:
> I've noticed that some packages conflict or depend on themself. As far
> as I know, this makes no sense and the dependency (of conflict) should
> be removed, but I prefer to ask here before filing useless bug reports.
Hi,
> I've noticed that some packages conflict or depend on themself. As far
> as I know, this makes no sense and the dependency (of conflict) should
> be removed, but I prefer to ask here before filing useless bug reports.
>
> This is a list of the packages:
> [...]
> unison:
> Conflicts on
16 matches
Mail list logo
