Hi!
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, James LewisMoss wrote:
> Package: grafix-dev
> Version: 1.6-1
> Severity: normal
>
> or maybe conflict. dunno. anyway. here's log.
[Summary for people on -qa:
old package: grafix
new packages: grafix1 (Replaces: grafix)
grafix-dev (Depends: grafix1)
On 00-12-27 Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, James LewisMoss wrote:
> > Package: grafix-dev
> > Version: 1.6-1
> > Severity: normal
> >
> > or maybe conflict. dunno. anyway. here's log.
> [Summary for people on -qa:
> old package: grafix
> new packages: grafix1 (Replaces: grafix
Hi Christian!
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > grafix-dev should conflict with grafix, (at least this is what
> > I think currently :-).
>
> No, I think those files that are in both package, should only be in one
> package. I think the -dev package would be the appropriate one.
g
On 00-12-27 Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > > grafix-dev should conflict with grafix, (at least this is what
> > > I think currently :-).
> >
> > No, I think those files that are in both package, should only be in one
> > package. I think the -dev package w
Hi Christian!
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > grafix1 shares a set of files with grafix.
>
> That's fine as grafix is an old package.
ACK
> > So does grafix-dev.
>
> But that is not fine. No package should contain any files that are in an
> other package already. So the correct
On 00-12-27 Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > > So does grafix-dev.
> >
> > But that is not fine. No package should contain any files that are in an
> > other package already. So the correct solution is to put those
> > conflicting files either in grafix1 or g
Hi Christian!
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Christian Kurz wrote:
> On 00-12-27 Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > > > So does grafix-dev.
> > >
> > > But that is not fine. No package should contain any files that are in an
> > > other package already. So the correc
On 00-12-27 Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > On 00-12-27 Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > > On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > > > > So does grafix-dev.
> > > >
> > > > But that is not fine. No package should contain any files that are in an
> > > > oth
Hi!
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Christian Kurz wrote:
> Are you sure that grafix1 and grafix-dev do not have any files in
> common? If yes, your suggestion would be alright.
yes, fine :)
> > Will "apt-get upgrade" work if the new package only has
> > | Replaces: foo
> > | Conflicts: foo
> > ioe, will
On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 08:41:41AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > Package: grafix-dev
> > Severity: normal
> >
> > or maybe conflict. dunno. anyway. here's log.
>
> [Summary for people on -qa:
> old package: grafix
> new packages: grafix1 (Replaces: grafix)
>grafix-dev (De
Hi all,
I want to help in the process of cleaning all those old bugs which I think
only are doing noise, because the software has evoluted. Many of them are
simply not closed bugs.
My idea is contact with bug submitters from older bugs to newer. This can be
done semi-automatically. I know some wo
Installing:
tunnelv_1.00-5.diff.gz
to pool/non-US/main/t/tunnelv/tunnelv_1.00-5.diff.gz
tunnelv_1.00-5.dsc
to pool/non-US/main/t/tunnelv/tunnelv_1.00-5.dsc
tunnelv_1.00-5_i386.deb
to pool/non-US/main/t/tunnelv/tunnelv_1.00-5_i386.deb
Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org
Closin
Your message dated Wed, 27 Dec 2000 20:52:16 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#80553: fixed in tunnelv 1.00-5
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Your message dated Wed, 27 Dec 2000 20:52:16 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#80554: fixed in tunnelv 1.00-5
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Hi Josip!
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Josip Rodin wrote:
> grafix1 should Conflicts+Replaces grafix, and grafix-dev should Conflicts
> grafix.
Yes this is what I thought too, thanks.
> > Let's say I have grafix installed and run an apt-get dist-upgrade.
> > IMHO it should upgrade grafix to grafix1, b
Hi Michael,
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000, Debian QA Group wrote:
> Source: grafix
> Binary: grafix1 grafix-dev
> Architecture: source i386
[...]
> a6e87478b260396106da02bb37249383 582 math optional grafix_1.6-1.dsc
> 2394c25abe13a8c489d75667d80ec3aa 301517 math optional grafix_1.6-1.tar.gz
> 453571c8cb
* Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20001227 22:14]:
> > Source: grafix
> > Binary: grafix1 grafix-dev
>
> Is there any reason you uploaded this as a native debian package?
Ahh, please shoot me. No reason at all, just a dumb mistake (funny,
since this was one of the
Hi Martin!
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20001227 22:14]:
> > > Source: grafix
> > > Binary: grafix1 grafix-dev
> >
> > Is there any reason you uploaded this as a native debian package?
>
> Ah
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 00:42:09 +0100
Source: grafix
Binary: grafix1 grafix-dev
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.6-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian QA Group
Changed-By: Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Descri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 01:15:52 +0100
Source: sciplot
Binary: sciplot1 sciplot-dev
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.36-5
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian QA Group
Changed-By: Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
De
20 matches
Mail list logo
