Sven Joachim writes ("Re: auto-removal and alternative dependencies"):
> No need to do so, this has been filed[1] quite some time ago already.
...
> 1. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=745475
That's a rather unsatisfying bug report.
I see people arguing a
On 2016-12-31 17:42 +0300, Sergei Golovan wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
> wrote:
>> On 08/12/16 13:02, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>> I have two packages that depend on: nagios3 | icinga
>>>
>>> nagios3 is being removed[1], but icinga[2] is still available, so why
>>>
Hi!
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 08/12/16 13:02, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> I have two packages that depend on: nagios3 | icinga
>>
>> nagios3 is being removed[1], but icinga[2] is still available, so why
>> can't my packages continue to list nagios3 as a possib
Daniel Pocock wrote:
>On 08/12/16 16:59, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> On 2016-12-08 13:08, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:41:38PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 08/12/16 13:35, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Daniel Po
On 08/12/16 16:59, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On 2016-12-08 13:08, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:41:38PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/12/16 13:35, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> [...]
>>>
>
On 2016-12-08 13:08, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:41:38PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
On 08/12/16 13:35, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
[...]
I don't think that clearly addresses the case of alternative
dep
On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:41:38PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>
> On 08/12/16 13:35, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
[...]
>
> I don't think that clearly addresses the case of alternative dependencies.
>
> My packages do not "requi
On 08/12/16 13:35, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> I have two packages that depend on: nagios3 | icinga
>>
>> nagios3 is being removed[1], but icinga[2] is still available, so
>> why can't my packages continue to list nagios3 as a pos
On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> I have two packages that depend on: nagios3 | icinga
>
> nagios3 is being removed[1], but icinga[2] is still available, so why
> can't my packages continue to list nagios3 as a possible dependency for
> the convenience of those peopl
On 08/12/16 13:22, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 08/12/16 13:02, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> I have two packages that depend on: nagios3 | icinga
>>
>> nagios3 is being removed[1], but icinga[2] is still available, so why
>> can't my packages continue to list nagios3 as a possible dependency for
On 08/12/16 13:02, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> I have two packages that depend on: nagios3 | icinga
>
> nagios3 is being removed[1], but icinga[2] is still available, so why
> can't my packages continue to list nagios3 as a possible dependency for
> the convenience of those people who continue to use i
I have two packages that depend on: nagios3 | icinga
nagios3 is being removed[1], but icinga[2] is still available, so why
can't my packages continue to list nagios3 as a possible dependency for
the convenience of those people who continue to use it?
Regards,
Daniel
1. https://packages.qa.
12 matches
Mail list logo