On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, Guillem Jover wrote:
> I'd prefer to have the makefiles under scripts/mk/ (for example), as
> those are definitely dpkg-dev specific, while the tables (which can
> stay where they are now) can be eventually used by the C code.
Ok.
> I don't quite like the all-vars.mk name, bu
Hi Raphael
Am Mi, 20.07.2011, 12:16 schrieb Raphael Hertzog:
> please use the mailing list debian-dpkg@lists.debian.org next time.
I've added a Cc: to the list.
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, Michael Neuffer wrote:
>> I have ad "db" file which seems to be corrupt and i can't figure out
>> what is wrong
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, Michael Neuffer wrote:
> > The database file is corrupted. What did you do to corrupt it? Is there a
> > reliable way to corrupt it?
>
> Yes, by editing it by hand. :-)
So there's no bug in update-alternatives at least.
> I had to do it a few weeks earlier to remove
> some a
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > bug), and given that those should not really be overridable and I
> > think uncommonly used, they don't seem to belong on the makefiles.
>
> I don't really see the logic behind that statement.
Forgot to expand a bit: the version related variables a
On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, Michael Neuffer wrote:
> > Hum, that should not happen. You should always be able to
> > update-alternatives to fix stuff.
>
> Not when you manage to get into circular dependencies.
You will have to be more specific because this doesn't mean anything to
me.
> > You won't hav
Am Mi, 20.07.2011, 14:40 schrieb Raphael Hertzog:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, Michael Neuffer wrote:
>> > The database file is corrupted. What did you do to corrupt it? Is
>> there a
>> > reliable way to corrupt it?
>>
>> Yes, by editing it by hand. :-)
>
> So there's no bug in update-alternatives at le
6 matches
Mail list logo
