On 22 April 2013 20:30, Stephan Springer wrote:
> Yes:
See bug #954029. Trivial fix, could be SRU.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/831768
Title:
aptitude cannot handle conflicts wit
On 22 April 2013 18:38, Stephan Springer wrote:
> I checked by trying to install wine. The dependency resolution only
> grumbles about one “recommends” which can't be resolved, which is
> probably okay.
gettext?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, whic
On 17 April 2013 17:25, Tim wrote:
> Laney, pretty sure it was already fixed in Q,via upstream.
Confirm this, with upstream hat on. The fix appears from version
0.6.8.1.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.l
[1] indicates to have a sponsor upload to -proposed before the Sru team
will review. It states there is no need to wait. The package is unusable
on m-a systems, in Ubuntu main, this upload is a self-contained fix: why
you consider it so unsuitable?
If the package does not get to -proposed, how e
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 09:08:34AM +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
> As someone familiar with the issue I request that you reopen those
> tasks to their previous status and immediately assign them to cjwatson
> (previously assigned) or someone else who is informed about this bug.
Please don't assign
On 4 October 2012 22:14, Michael Terry wrote:
> So after some quick smoke tests of my own, I've uploaded it
> to quantal.
Appreciated.
> According to comment 104, SRUs are not necessarily requested by this
> bug.
>From that comment, with emphasis added:
> This is *currently* only a request to
On 3 October 2012 03:27, YAFU <831...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
> Sorry, I've rushed.
> Now "aptitude" v0.6.8.1 on Precise can not resolve dependencies when trying
> to install Google Earth:
> http://pastebin.com/eu2ua79c
The proposed solution there looks fine to me, remove some -dev and
misc.
Thanks everyone. I think we have enough user confirmations of the patch
now.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/831768
Title:
aptitude cannot handle conflicts with multiarch enabled
To
On 7 August 2012 13:44, Fyodor Kupchik <831...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
> After update went successfully I downloaded new skype package
> from skype.com i386 version and installed it. Everything went OK!
>
> So here's is *definitely improvement* for me and disabling the
> option in /etc/apt/apt.c
On 6 August 2012 03:15, Edward Donovan wrote:
> (I tried to build it against 0.6.8 from the debian source, but the gtest
> stuff wouldn't build. I was compiling it with dpkg-buildpackage, and
> couldn't find how to skip building those tests.)
After review of the changes between .6 and .8, the pa
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Daniel Hartwig
<831...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
> Also, this report does not need more comments about:
Sorry, Daniel. Overexcited about aptitude. :)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
h
On 27 April 2012 11:12, Daniel Hartwig <831...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
> ** Description changed:
>
> TEST CASE:
> 1. Enable multiarch (should be automatic on new oneiric systems)
> 2. Install an i386 package on amd64 (like flashplugin-installer:i386)
> 3. Mark something with a lot of depende
On Apr 27, 2012 2:10 AM, "Edward Donovan" <831...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
>
> I know this isn't a referendum, I just found these two cents in my
> pocket.
>
> Shahar wrote:
> > It's resolver is not so hot but to say that it "does not work" is a bit
misleading!
>
> For what little it's worth, it
On 26 April 2012 20:35, Swâmi Petaramesh <831...@bugs.launchpad.net>
wrote:
> Well it was still broken yesterday evening ;-)
>
It's resolver is not so hot but to say that it "does not work" is a bit
misleading!
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug
> r
On 26 April 2012 18:37, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 03:05:20PM -, Shahar Or wrote:
> > This is wrong! Aptitude works now!
>
> The logs of this bug are distinctly ambiguous on the subject :-)
>
I informed the release team about it.
Thanks.
>
> --
> You received this bug no
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 03:05:20PM -, Shahar Or wrote:
> This is wrong! Aptitude works now!
The logs of this bug are distinctly ambiguous on the subject :-)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.ne
On 3 April 2012 23:12, Shahar Or wrote:
> Dear Anders, Philip, Michal, Friends,
>
> I've filed individual bugs for the two issues that you mentioned,
> Anders.
>
> Is there a "Well, the resolver is a mess." bug report :) ? Really, is
> there? Launchpad or upstream Debian? Please give pointers if y
On Mar 29, 2012 6:16 PM, "Stephan Springer" wrote:
>
> I tried to install aptitude_0.6.6-1_amd64.deb from debian/unstable today
> on Precise, but that doesn't work because of a missing dependency to
> libapt-pkg4.10, which is provided by apt 0.8.15.10 in Debian, but
> installing that would be a do
On 13 March 2012 21:18, Daniel Hartwig <831...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
>> Sure, I'll file a request against APT.
>
> Never mind that. I will have a patch ready shortly.
Thank you very much, Daniel!
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscr
On 13 March 2012 18:18, Daniel Hartwig <831...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
>> Packages from different architectures should definitely be displayed
>> as individual packages because:
>> ...
>
> That was my reasoning also. This is much easier to implement and
> practically already done.
Woohoo!
>>
On 13 March 2012 04:26, Daniel Hartwig <831...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
>> 3. each available architecture of packages that are available only in
>> foreign architectures as ":"
>
> Ok, this may prove more useful than what I was considering (only show
> the first such architecture).
>
>> The reaso
On 13 March 2012 03:26, Daniel Hartwig <831...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
>> 3. each available architecture of packages that are available only in
>> foreign architectures as ":"
>
> Ok, this may prove more useful than what I was considering (only show
> the first such architecture).
>
>> The reaso
On 10 March 2012 06:20, Daniel Hartwig <831...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
> '~r' is a reasonable choice for the short form. I had not
> previously assigned one but will do.
Great!
>> It should show results from all architectures because aptitude's
>> search behavior(2) is very simple: if a pack
>> Now that aptitude understands multiarch packages you should not get
>> bazillions of errors.
>>
>
> Have you been using the in-development version and noticed less
> errors, or is this just speculation?
No, I don't see the in-development version packaged anywhere. However,
this is more than jus
On 10 March 2012 05:49, Daniel Hartwig <831...@bugs.launchpad.net> wrote:
> Hi Michal (hramrach)
>
>> Any possible multiarch-specific issues will be lost in the
>> heaps of issues the resolver already has.
>>
>
> Some do stand out quite harshly. Consider #651748 [1] where the UI
> is trashed by mu
Hello,
thanks for bringing these fixes.
>From my view these are probably enough to make aptitude "support
multiarch".
As for resolver being unreliable on multiarch - I don't consider that
a multiarch issue.
It is a long-standing problem that the resolver is generally
unreliable. Any possible mu
26 matches
Mail list logo
