Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All in all, I think this can probably be solved, but it's not trivial and
> risks making the resolver take longer to produce worse results. The current
> results are IMO not a disaster (they require manual intervention but won't
> hose the system -- y
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 08:02:24AM +0200, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 11:33:07AM +0200, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > was heard to say:
> >> The simple practical solution to this particular pr
Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 11:33:07AM +0200, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> was heard to say:
>> The simple practical solution to this particular problem will be to
>> remove preview-latex from the archive as soon as auctex has reached
>> testing. But
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 11:33:07AM +0200, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> The simple practical solution to this particular problem will be to
> remove preview-latex from the archive as soon as auctex has reached
> testing. But I think something's seriously wrong with aptitude
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 05:15:46PM -0700, Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 11:33:07AM +0200, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> was heard to say:
> > The simple practical solution to this particular problem will be to
> > remove preview-latex from the
severity 391377 important
thanks
Hi, I think this is related to the bug I reported, but it is an even
worse issue.
# apt-cache policy auctex
auctex:
Installed: 11.55-1
Candidate: 11.83-2.1
Version table:
11.83-2.1 0
500 http://localhost unstable/main Packages
11.83-2 0
6 matches
Mail list logo
