On Sat, 22 Apr 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On the downside, it doesn't care about priorities, and doesn't list
> > explanations (it seems hard to work out what's at fault when conflicts
> > are involved).
>
> I'm curious, what exactly do you do with conflic
On 22 Apr 2000, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
>
> > FWIW, http://auric.debian.org/~ajt/potato_probs.html has similar lists,
> > except it will choose whichever of perl or perl5 that works, and not
> > worry that the other one doesn't. It also takes Conflicts into account.
> >
> >
Anthony Towns writes:
> FWIW, http://auric.debian.org/~ajt/potato_probs.html has similar lists,
> except it will choose whichever of perl or perl5 that works, and not
> worry that the other one doesn't. It also takes Conflicts into account.
>
> On the downside, it doesn't care about priorities,
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> On the downside, it doesn't care about priorities, and doesn't list
> explanations (it seems hard to work out what's at fault when conflicts
> are involved).
I'm curious, what exactly do you do with conflicts? Detect depend<->conflict
problems (ie a depends on b w
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
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 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 Thu, 20 Apr 2000, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 12:33:33AM +0200, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> > ATTN ftpmasters:
> >
> > To be perfectly clear: contrary to the Subject: line, 2.1r6 should _not_ be
> > released right after the included "wishlist" has been processed.
> >
> > Acco
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 07:47:08PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Could you release that list so the packages can be fixed? I don't want
> > potato to be the worst Debian release ever.
>
> http://master.debian.org/~wakkerma/unmet.html
Some of the
On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 07:47:08PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Could you release that list so the packages can be fixed? I don't want
> potato to be the worst Debian release ever.
http://master.debian.org/~wakkerma/unmet.html
If you think that's enough to make potato the worst Debian release
Richard Braakman wrote:
> For some values of "relatively". The i386 tree, counting only main,
> currently has 6 unsatisfied Depends relationships that I know of.
> I can probably eliminate all but two of them before the release.
> (The exeptions are libglide2-v3 depending on device3dfx-module,
> w
On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 09:26:33AM -0700, Jim Westveer wrote:
> With a big enough hammer, you can force anything.
>
> Yes, you can force the creation of CD's, but then you get
> a CD that has software that is NOT installable, in this case
> w3-el. It would seem that the "correct" thing to do woul
Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 12:49:03PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > But in fact most of them ARE ironed out - potato CDs have been made by
> > someone or other almost daily for weeks now without major incident.
>
> Presumably using a smarter tool than debian-cd, then.
On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 07:39:03PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 12:49:03PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > But in fact most of them ARE ironed out - potato CDs have been made by
> > someone or other almost daily for weeks now without major incident.
>
> Presumably u
On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 12:49:03PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> But in fact most of them ARE ironed out - potato CDs have been made by
> someone or other almost daily for weeks now without major incident.
Presumably using a smarter tool than debian-cd, then. potato has
a number of open depen
On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 06:12:08PM +0200, 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 o
On 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 this
>> d
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 this
> > dependancy pr
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 this
> dependancy problem.
What I don't understand
On 20-Apr-2000 Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 12:33:33AM +0200, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
>> ATTN ftpmasters:
>>
>> To be perfectly clear: contrary to the Subject: line, 2.1r6 should _not_ be
>> released right after the included "wishlist" has been processed.
>
> And have slink cha
On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 12:33:33AM +0200, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> ATTN ftpmasters:
>
> To be perfectly clear: contrary to the Subject: line, 2.1r6 should _not_ be
> released right after the included "wishlist" has been processed.
>
> According to release procedures we're currently trying out, the "
On Wed, 19 Apr 2000, Vincent Renardias wrote:
> hello,
>
> Here's the list (attached) of the packages that should be added to slink
> before to release 2.1r6.
ATTN ftpmasters:
To be perfectly clear: contrary to the Subject: line, 2.1r6 should _not_ be
released right after the included "w
25 matches
Mail list logo
