On 05/21/2016 11:36 PM, Iustin Pop wrote:
> On 2016-05-11 11:18:53, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 12:47:58PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
- "Binary Package: libprotobuf-lite9v5: Package is optional and has a
Conflicts on libprotobuf-lite9 which is optional"; the problem is
On 2016-05-11 11:18:53, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 12:47:58PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > > - "Binary Package: libprotobuf-lite9v5: Package is optional and has a
> > > Conflicts on libprotobuf-lite9 which is optional"; the problem is that
> > > it libprotobuf-lite9v5 not only
On 2016-05-11 12:47:58, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Iustin Pop , 2016-05-09, 22:29:
> > I'm looking at
> > https://qa.debian.org/debcheck.php?dist=unstable&package=protobuf, and
> > both issues I see listed seem false positives:
> >
> > - "Package has a Depends on python:any (>= 2.7.5-5~) which cannot b
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 12:47:58PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > - "Binary Package: libprotobuf-lite9v5: Package is optional and has a
> > Conflicts on libprotobuf-lite9 which is optional"; the problem is that
> > it libprotobuf-lite9v5 not only conflicts, but also _replaces_
> > libprotobuf-lite9,
* Iustin Pop , 2016-05-09, 22:29:
I'm looking at
https://qa.debian.org/debcheck.php?dist=unstable&package=protobuf, and
both issues I see listed seem false positives:
- "Package has a Depends on python:any (>= 2.7.5-5~) which cannot be
satisfied on $all_arches"; this is wrong, as python:any i
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Iustin Pop wrote:
> Let me know if I should be reporting these as bugs against some package,
> or if they are not problems.
These are known problems. If anyone would like to help finish up the
attached patch to make debcheck use libdpkg-perl for parsing, that
woul
6 matches
Mail list logo
