Am Mittwoch, den 09.01.2008, 07:05 +0100 schrieb Sebastian Dröge:
> Hi,
> please schedule binNMUs for the following packages for cli-common 0.5.5.
> Because of a bug in older version dh_makeclilibs created broken clilibs
> control files.
>
> monodoc 1.2.6-2
> gmime 2.2.15-1
> taglib-sharp 2.0.2.0
Hi,
please schedule binNMUs for the following packages for cli-common 0.5.5.
Because of a bug in older version dh_makeclilibs created broken clilibs
control files.
monodoc 1.2.6-2
gmime 2.2.15-1
taglib-sharp 2.0.2.0-2
banshee 0.13.2+dfsg-1
Thanks and bye
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein
On 08/01/2008, David wrote:
> So, am I silly or, how in heaven's name can xinetd provide
> inet-superserver and conflict with inet-superserver? (conflicts with
> the same package that it provides??).
See 7.5.2 under
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-replac
Thank you for the replies
> $ apt-cache show xinetd | egrep 'Conflicts|Provides'
> Provides: inet-superserver
> Conflicts: inet-superserver
>
>
So, am I silly or, how in heaven's name can xinetd provide inet-superserver
and conflict with inet-superserver? (conflicts with the same package that it
On 2008-01-08 David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >From long ago, xinetd is due for upgrade (from version 1:2.3.14-1.1 to 1:
> 2.3.14-5). But, when I select upgrade, synaptic prompts to remove
> openbsd-inetd.
> I have checked the dependences and conflicts of both xinetd and
> openbsd-inetd and I d
On 08/01/2008, David wrote:
> From long ago, xinetd is due for upgrade (from version 1:2.3.14-1.1
> to 1:2.3.14-5). But, when I select upgrade, synaptic prompts to
> remove openbsd-inetd.
>
> I have checked the dependences and conflicts of both xinetd and
> openbsd-inetd and I do not see any reaso
>From long ago, xinetd is due for upgrade (from version 1:2.3.14-1.1 to 1:
2.3.14-5). But, when I select upgrade, synaptic prompts to remove
openbsd-inetd.
I have checked the dependences and conflicts of both xinetd and
openbsd-inetd and I do not see any reason for this behaviour.
Is there anythi
ltsp is again blocked from migrating into testing, likely due to the
ltsp-client-builder udeb, though this udeb is not used by
debian-installer by default.
it has been in unstable for 9 days now, without introducing new
problems.
please allow ltsp 5.0.40~bzr20071229-1 into testing, as it bring lt
8 matches
Mail list logo