Carlos Laviola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 24-Apr-2001 Colin Watson wrote:
>> One thing that might be a good idea is for libliteclue1 to conflict and
>> provide libliteclue, as well as replacing it if they share any files.
>
>They did, the .so itself.
Looks like it's fixed in incoming, though.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24-Apr-2001 Colin Watson wrote:
> One thing that might be a good idea is for libliteclue1 to conflict and
> provide libliteclue, as well as replacing it if they share any files.
They did, the .so itself.
- --
carlos laviola - icq #55799523
$ cho
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 at 13:06:50 -0300, Carlos Laviola wrote:
> Shouldn't a new (dummy) libliteclue package be uploaded to reflect
> this in its description?
If any packages actually used it, I'd say that those packages just need
to be recompiled. Since nothing else depends on it, though, I'd say t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Shouldn't a new (dummy) libliteclue package be uploaded to reflect this in its
description?
On 24-Apr-2001 Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
(...)
> libliteclue is orphaned, and has since been renamed to libliteclue1;
> Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
4 matches
Mail list logo
