Le Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 06:22:26PM +0200, Martin Schulze écrivait:
> > What I don't understand is why this makes it impossible to generate
> > CD's. Is debian-cd so fragile that it dies on an unmet dependency?
>
> Yes.
No. Debian-cd copes quite well with it, it refuses to include packages
with u
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
**cut
> Which stresses an important point: the Debian distribution isn't anymore only
> about FTP archives, but CDs are becoming increasingly important. This is taken
> care for nicely with the potato test cycles, but as soon as `stable' things
> are conce
On Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 02:14:43AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Well, apache-ssl's Depends line contains "perl | perl5"
> We can argue if it is a bug; I wrote the code to verify that all
> options can be fullfilled. [...]
FWIW, http://auric.debian.org/~ajt/p
>
> Hi,
>
> If you use the "flavors" mechanism, the package will probably be named
> kernel-foo-2.2.15-pre19_2.2.15-pre19-1. Might be better to take out the
> dashes, and have it be kernel-foo-2.2.15pre19_2.2.15pre19-1.
>
Ew, that would make it even more complex for boot-floppies. I think Herbe
Hi.
> Date:Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:28:11 EDT
> To: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc: Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> debian-release@lists.debian.org,[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From:Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Preparing for first test cycle
>
> Uggh, can you m
Previously Santiago Vila wrote:
> Well, apache-ssl's Depends line contains "perl | perl5"
> perl5 is provided by perl-5.005 which has "Priority: important", so
> the dependency is actually satisfied, and apache-ssl does not depend on
> an extra package.
We can argue if it is a bug; I wrote the cod
On Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 10:52:54AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> Upon reflection, I'll just change MINOR to 15 and be done with it. So
> the arch-specific package will look like kernel-foo-2.2.15 2.2.15pre19-1, and
> the arch-independent packages will be kernel-foo-2.2.15pre19 2.2.15pre19-1.
s/ar
On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 08:26:58PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> Well it uses the package name, like so:
>
> kernel-image-
>
> which for example on sparc matches
>
> kernel-image-2.2.14-sun4cdm
Upon reflection, I'll just change MINOR to 15 and be done with it. So
the arch-specific package wil
On Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 08:36:21AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 06:28:11PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > Uggh, can you make it kernel-foo-2.2.15_2.2.15-pre19-1? This way in the
> > boot-floppies we can actually change the version of the kernel it looks
> > for to 2.2.15,
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 07:34:11AM -0700, Jim Westveer wrote:
> > I understand that one does not want to update the stable tree
> > without documenting the changes, but the current errors
> > in 2.1r5 are procluding the creation of .iso's because of
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, Jim Westveer wrote:
>
> Ok, how about making sure that there are no package dependancy
> errors in the resulting update. (ie apt-get check?)
>
> The problem at the moment is that slink on ftp.d.o currently
> has a dependancy error with the packages w3-el* because
> emacs
On Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 10:17:08AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 08:05:22PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > Not the package name, just the version. So it just says "2.2.14". There is
> > one entry for each arch.
>
> Well if it's the version then there is no problem since I
On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 08:05:22PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> Not the package name, just the version. So it just says "2.2.14". There is
> one entry for each arch.
Well if it's the version then there is no problem since I can set the
version to 2.2.15 if needed, I just need the package name to
13 matches
Mail list logo
