mån 2012-05-14 klockan 14:29 +0200 skrev Mathieu Malaterre: > tags 667575 moreinfo > thanks > > Mattias, any comments ? I have been using dccp for a while now. dccp > is already known since squeeze. You only introduced dccp recently. > Would it be possible to rename it to something else ? > > I do not believe we can use alternatives in this case, since dccp are > fundamentally different applications. > > Thanks
Hi!
Is the dccp binary supposed to be present in the dicom3tools or not? The
reason I ask is that it is currently only present in the binary package
for amd64, and not on any other architecture. The dccp binary seems to
never be present in dicom3tools packages built on the buildd builders.
It is sometimes present in the binary package for the uploaded
architecture not built on the buildd builders, but not always.
This file conflict was reported once before (bug #640914) and that tine
it was resolved by an update to the dicom3tools package that didn't
contain the dccp binary also on amd64.
As far as I can tell, the dicom3tools package did not contain the dccp
binary at the time the dcap package was accepted in Debian (2009-12-30).
The file conflict was first reported 2011-09-08, following an update to
dicom3tools on 2011-09-03 (version 1.0~20110901-1) that introduced the
dccp binary - but for amd64 only. As mentioned above, this was resolved
later by a new dicom3tools update that didn't contain the dccp binary.
Now the same situation has occurred again due to a new update of
dicom3tools containing the dccp binary for amd64 only.
Mattias
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
