On 12/14/2012 05:59 PM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:17 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
On 12/11/2012 08:56 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
You could try "aptitude why libjack-jackd2-0" to find out what caused the
installation of that package and thus the removal of libjack0.
Un
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:17 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
>
> On 12/11/2012 08:56 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
>
>> Am 11.12.2012 14:44, schrieb The Wanderer:
>>
>>> And since I didn't say it explicitly before: although I do think the bug
>>> report is legitimate, I'm willing enough at this point to fi
On 12/11/2012 08:56 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Am 11.12.2012 14:44, schrieb The Wanderer:
And since I didn't say it explicitly before: although I do think the bug
report is legitimate, I'm willing enough at this point to fix my own
package-install situation manually and proceed from there, if
Am 11.12.2012 14:44, schrieb The Wanderer:
And since I didn't say it explicitly before: although I do think the
bug report
is legitimate, I'm willing enough at this point to fix my own
package-install
situation manually and proceed from there, if no one has any further
suggestions
for how to proc
On 12/11/2012 08:32 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
While I'd be interested to continue the discussion of aptitude vs. apt-get,
it's certainly offtopic for this bug. As such, I do not (presently) intend to
reply to any further posts on this bug on that subject, unless they appear to
be going back in the
On 12/10/2012 04:59 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting The Wanderer (2012-12-10 17:57:18)
On 12/10/2012 11:21 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Check the meanings with "aptitude --help".
On my system, the text output from that command does not include the string
'dist':
True. Look at the *u
Quoting Felipe Sateler (2012-12-10 23:18:34)
> On Dec 10, 2012 7:03 PM, "Jonas Smedegaard" <[1]d...@jones.dk> wrote:
>> I don't want to speculate further: Your system contains 32bit libs
>> and held back packages, and (discussed below) you use different tools
>> than those recommended in release
On Dec 10, 2012 7:03 PM, "Jonas Smedegaard" wrote:
>
> Quoting The Wanderer (2012-12-10 17:57:18)
> > On 12/10/2012 11:21 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >
> > > Quoting The Wanderer (2012-12-10 16:30:19)
> > >> the question becomes why the dist-upgrade is trying to remove
> > >> libjack0.
> >
> > >
Quoting The Wanderer (2012-12-10 17:57:18)
> On 12/10/2012 11:21 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> > Quoting The Wanderer (2012-12-10 16:30:19)
> >> the question becomes why the dist-upgrade is trying to remove
> >> libjack0.
>
> > Ohhh: Most likely cause is that libjack-jackd2-dev provides
> > l
On 12/10/2012 11:21 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting The Wanderer (2012-12-10 16:30:19)
On 12/10/2012 10:08 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
There are multiple implementations of JACK, and one of those
implementations happen to have a "2" in its name.
In that case (and based on a few other
Quoting The Wanderer (2012-12-10 16:30:19)
> On 12/10/2012 10:08 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > There are multiple implementations of JACK, and one of those
> > implementations happen to have a "2" in its name.
> In that case (and based on a few other things which I've snipped), the
> question
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:42 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
> (Apologies to Felipe for the duplicate reply; I didn't notice until after
> sending that the To: didn't include the bug address.)
>
>
> On 12/10/2012 10:15 AM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 10:25 PM, The Wanderer
>> wrote
(Apologies to Felipe for the duplicate reply; I didn't notice until after
sending that the To: didn't include the bug address.)
On 12/10/2012 10:15 AM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 10:25 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
Package: libjack-dev
Version: 1:0.121.3+20120418git75e3e20b-2.1
S
On 12/10/2012 10:08 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting The Wanderer (2012-12-10 14:41:51)
Just to clarify: is JACK v2 strictly a superset of JACK v1 in terms of API
and presumably ABI? Or are there parts of the JACK v1 API which JACK v2
does not provide?
If the former, then I would be inclin
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 10:25 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
> Package: libjack-dev
> Version: 1:0.121.3+20120418git75e3e20b-2.1
> Severity: normal
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> When I attempt to dist-upgrade to current testing, apt wants to remove
> libjack0
> and install libjack-jackd2-0. This is fine; the l
Quoting The Wanderer (2012-12-10 14:41:51)
> Just to clarify: is JACK v2 strictly a superset of JACK v1 in terms of
> API and presumably ABI? Or are there parts of the JACK v1 API which
> JACK v2 does not provide?
>
> If the former, then I would be inclined to consider this a strict
> transitio
On 12/10/2012 06:08 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Hi,
Quoting The Wanderer (2012-12-10 02:25:21)
When I attempt to dist-upgrade to current testing, apt wants to remove
libjack0 and install libjack-jackd2-0. This is fine; the latter explicitly
Provides: the same virtual package as the former, so
Hi,
Quoting The Wanderer (2012-12-10 02:25:21)
> When I attempt to dist-upgrade to current testing, apt wants to remove
> libjack0 and install libjack-jackd2-0. This is fine; the latter
> explicitly Provides: the same virtual package as the former, so
> presumably this is part of an intended pa
Package: libjack-dev
Version: 1:0.121.3+20120418git75e3e20b-2.1
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
When I attempt to dist-upgrade to current testing, apt wants to remove libjack0
and install libjack-jackd2-0. This is fine; the latter explicitly Provides: the
same virtual package as the former, so
19 matches
Mail list logo
