On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 11:46:51PM +0100, Luca Bigliardi wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
>
> > The best I could do would be to version it 1:1.7+1.8.1.14-3. Do you
> > think it's any better ?
>
> Maybe it's not so appropriate but... what about virtual packages?
>
> L
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> The best I could do would be to version it 1:1.7+1.8.1.14-3. Do you
> think it's any better ?
Maybe it's not so appropriate but... what about virtual packages?
Like "Provides: js-1.7" for spidermonkey-bin and
"Provides: libjs-1.7" for libmoz
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 09:24:27PM +0100, Luca Bigliardi wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 08:33 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
>
> > It's the javascript version, the package version is unrelated.
>
> This is the point: I think it's a bit strange to have a spidermonkey-bin
> package version 1.8.0 which co
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 08:33 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> It's the javascript version, the package version is unrelated.
This is the point: I think it's a bit strange to have a spidermonkey-bin
package version 1.8.0 which contains spidermonkey 1.6 and a package
version 1.8.1 which contains spidermon
Package: spidermonkey-bin
Version: 1.8.1.14-3
Severity: normal
As you can see I've installed spidermonkey-bin version 1.8.1.14-3, but
smjs says it's at version 1.7.0.
$ smjs -foo
JavaScript-C 1.7.0 2007-10-03
usage: ...
Please can you explain why there's this difference and why you package
spid
5 matches
Mail list logo
