Le Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 04:48:04AM -, Robert Woodcock écrivait:
> So, the gist of that is that dpkg has been left for dead (well, NMU hell
> anyway) for a full year and there hasn't been *that* many complaints.
> Just no new features.
I don't agree. I don't want to blame anybody since i'am not
Martin A. Soto wrote:
>
>Many, *many* people has proposed this idea before. So many, that you
>would be tempted to consider it a simple, natural, and straightforward
>idea. Nonetheless, it seems that this far, it has been impossible to
>make it part of dpkg, or even to start working on the necess
Robert Woodcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We need to add a new field - call it anything you want - I called it
> "Was-Part-Of:" in an earlier post, but I'm sure there's a better name than
> that - "Previously:" maybe.
>
> Anyway, say slink contains a package 'foobar', version 1.2-3. The
> main
Adam Heath wrote:
>I see a problem with all this talk about pseudo packages for upgrades from
>hamm.
>
>These 'pkgs' will have to remain in the system forever. If someone skips
>slink, and goes to potato when that is released, the same problem will occur.
>
>If we ever fix dpkg/dselect/apt to hand
4 matches
Mail list logo
