"Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> another thought here. If you actually MUST have libucxx0 (= 1.2) or whatever
> then the library is not doing its job and defining the soname correctly and
> perhaps libucxx0 is the wrong name. The whole point of SONAMEs is that the
> library
"Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> another thought here. If you actually MUST have libucxx0 (= 1.2) or whatever
> then the library is not doing its job and defining the soname correctly and
> perhaps libucxx0 is the wrong name. The whole point of SONAMEs is that the
> librar
On 30-Oct-2001 Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Andreas Rottmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, libucxx0 (= ${Source-Version})
>>
>> which results in:
>>
>> Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4), libsigc++0, libucxx0, python2-base (>= 2.0-1),
>> libucxx0 (= 0.2.0-1)
>>
>> Anybody
Andreas Rottmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, libucxx0 (= ${Source-Version})
>
> which results in:
>
> Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4), libsigc++0, libucxx0, python2-base (>= 2.0-1),
> libucxx0 (= 0.2.0-1)
>
> Anybody got a hint how to avoid that?
You can put the foll
On 30-Oct-2001 Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Andreas Rottmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, libucxx0 (= ${Source-Version})
>>
>> which results in:
>>
>> Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4), libsigc++0, libucxx0, python2-base (>= 2.0-1),
>> libucxx0 (= 0.2.0-1)
>>
>> Anybody
Andreas Rottmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, libucxx0 (= ${Source-Version})
>
> which results in:
>
> Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4), libsigc++0, libucxx0, python2-base (>= 2.0-1), libucxx0
>(= 0.2.0-1)
>
> Anybody got a hint how to avoid that?
You can put the foll
On 30-Oct-2001 Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> I repackaged a previously lintian-clean package of mine right now and
> the new lintian (v1.20.16) barks:
>
> E: libucxx0-python: package-has-a-duplicate-relation libucxx0
> E: libucxx0-guile: package-has-a-duplicate-relation libucxx0
>
> Yeah, I understa
On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 01:11:46PM +0100, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> I repackaged a previously lintian-clean package of mine right now and
> the new lintian (v1.20.16) barks:
> W: libucxx0: postinst-unsafe-ldconfig
> W: libsigcx0-gtk: postinst-unsafe-ldconfig
>
> But both of them have the ldconfi
On 30-Oct-2001 Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> I repackaged a previously lintian-clean package of mine right now and
> the new lintian (v1.20.16) barks:
>
> E: libucxx0-python: package-has-a-duplicate-relation libucxx0
> E: libucxx0-guile: package-has-a-duplicate-relation libucxx0
>
> Yeah, I underst
On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 01:11:46PM +0100, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> I repackaged a previously lintian-clean package of mine right now and
> the new lintian (v1.20.16) barks:
> W: libucxx0: postinst-unsafe-ldconfig
> W: libsigcx0-gtk: postinst-unsafe-ldconfig
>
> But both of them have the ldconf
I repackaged a previously lintian-clean package of mine right now and
the new lintian (v1.20.16) barks:
E: libucxx0-python: package-has-a-duplicate-relation libucxx0
E: libucxx0-guile: package-has-a-duplicate-relation libucxx0
Yeah, I understand this, but I dont know how to avoid it, since I must
I repackaged a previously lintian-clean package of mine right now and
the new lintian (v1.20.16) barks:
E: libucxx0-python: package-has-a-duplicate-relation libucxx0
E: libucxx0-guile: package-has-a-duplicate-relation libucxx0
Yeah, I understand this, but I dont know how to avoid it, since I mus
12 matches
Mail list logo