Bug#473341: Processed: severity of 473341 is serious

2008-04-08 Thread Stepan Golosunov
08.04.2008 в 07:30:18 +0100 Barak A. Pearlmutter написал(а): > > And djview in etch provides /usr/bin/djview as a regular file. > > Gotcha. > > But djview3 and djview4 should conflict: with djview (<< xxx) so it > seems like that should not happen. At least, that was my intent. Did > I make som

Bug#473341: Processed: severity of 473341 is serious

2008-04-07 Thread Barak A. Pearlmutter
> And djview in etch provides /usr/bin/djview as a regular file. Gotcha. But djview3 and djview4 should conflict: with djview (<< xxx) so it seems like that should not happen. At least, that was my intent. Did I make some mistake in this regard? And if so, can you think of a good way to fix it

Bug#473341: Processed: severity of 473341 is serious

2008-04-07 Thread Stepan Golosunov
07.04.2008 в 21:56:11 +0100 Barak A. Pearlmutter написал(а): > Sorry, I don't understand the issue. > Both djview3 and djview4 provide /usr/bin/djview via the > update-alternatives mechanism. And djview in etch provides /usr/bin/djview as a regular file. If I am not mistaken, update-alternatives -

Bug#473341: Processed: severity of 473341 is serious

2008-04-07 Thread Barak A. Pearlmutter
Sorry, I don't understand the issue. Both djview3 and djview4 provide /usr/bin/djview via the update-alternatives mechanism. --Barak. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#473341: Processed: severity of 473341 is serious

2008-04-07 Thread Stepan Golosunov
On the second thought, djview in stable is unaffected by the conflict, while lenny no longer contains djview. Actually, the conflict over /usr/bin/djview3 no longer exists in Debian. But: what will happen with /usr/bin/djview? Looks like there will be no /usr/bin/djview after djview and djview3 a