Philipp Kern wrote:
> I suppose lxde-common without lxpanel doesn't make much sense? Apart from
> that you could also denote the dependency with "[!kfreebsd-i386
> !kfreebsd-amd64]" until it's ported. This is a kludge, agreed, but a
> simple unblock won't do. (It's either force-hinting the packa
Hallo Andrew,
am Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 01:21:10PM +0800 hast du folgendes geschrieben:
> > As tasksel needs lxde-core this would transiently break it, which is
> > denoted by the tasksel-meta-faux package which is semi-automatically[*]
> > generated out of tasksel's data.
> Would the be possible to
Philipp Kern wrote:
> | Binary Package: lxde-core (Version: 0.5.0-3)
> |
> | BTS entry: http://bugs.debian.org/lxde-core
> | Relationships
> |
> | Package has a Depends on lxpanel (>= 0.4) which cannot be satisfied on
> kfreebsd-amd64.
> | Package has a Depends on lxpanel (>= 0.4) which cannot b
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:41:23PM +0700, Andrew Lee wrote:
> The lxde-common package got blocked by _tasksel-meta-faux_ package.
> However I did a search, and cannot find any information about
> _tasksel-meta-faux_ package. Any idea?
>
> Details:
>http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.p
4 matches
Mail list logo
