Hi everybody,
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 03:01:10AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, 2017-07-04 at 23:30:37 +0300, Niko Tyni wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 10:18:08PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 10:29:35PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 04,
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 09:30:05PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
>...
> I guess I am not the only one who does not understand the consequences
> of versionend provides, and what they mean exaxtly. Part of the problem
> is of course that policy is still at the state of unversionend provides
> only. I t
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 11:02:52PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> 6)
>
> Package: a
> Depends: p (>= 1), p (<< 2)
>
> Package: b
> Provides: p (=1)
>
> Package: c
> Provides: p (=2)
>
> When a and b are installed, can c be installed without removing a?
Excellent. The fact that real packages can
On Tue, 2017-07-04 at 15:16:20 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Guillem, thanks for fixing the bug promptly. Do we want to push that
> out in a stable update ?
Although I doubt this affects any Debian package, given the default
allowed pattern in adduser/addgroup for user names, and going from
memory
On Wed, 2017-07-05 at 23:02:52 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 09:30:05PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > I guess I am not the only one who does not understand the consequences
> > of versionend provides, and what they mean exaxtly. Part of the problem
> > is of course that polic
5 matches
Mail list logo
