Hi Eugene! :-)
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:15:02 +0200 Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
[...]
> > > # cat /etc/apt/preferences
> > >
> > > Explanation: Pinned by apt-listbugs at Mon Oct 17 20:51:13 + 2011
> > > Explanation: #615671: derivations: ftbfs with gcc-4.5
> > > Package: derivat
Hi James,
> > # cat /etc/apt/preferences
> >
> > Explanation: Pinned by apt-listbugs at Mon Oct 17 20:51:13 + 2011
> > Explanation: #615671: derivations: ftbfs with gcc-4.5
> > Package: derivations
> > Pin: version *
> > Pin-Priority: -3
> >
As I understand, this is now
Hi Francesco,
On 2011-10-29 18:33, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> Well, but I hope there will be a way to tell cupt that:
>
> (A) version v1 of package P1 (which *is* currently installed) must not
> be upgraded
>
> (B) package P2 (which is currently *not* installed) must not be
> inst
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:10:10 +0300 Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
[...]
> > The user should have (approximately) equivalent pins for both package
> > managers.
>
> That's impossible if there are different pin priority systems.
Well, but I hope there will be a way to tell cupt that:
(A) version v1
> > In the concept I have in the mind all pin stanzas will not be final, so
> > I think this check can be totally disabled in "cupt" mode.
>
> This looks problematic to me.
> I mean: I don't think that apt-listbugs should have distinct modes
> depending on the package manager the user wants to use
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:12:43 +0300 Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
[...]
> On 2011-10-16 12:35, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > Mh...
> > This looks like much more work than it would appear at a first
> > glance... :-(
>
> Indeed I was too optimistic. Still,
>
> > (A) it has to check whether a
On 2011-10-19 00:42, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Good, I've just pushed this modification to the apt-listbugs public git
> repository: see
> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=apt-listbugs/apt-listbugs.git;a=commitdiff;h=c7561047b211039c5d12e0006fd3af7a16d98ea6
>
> You may therefore consider this mod
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:36:13 +0300 Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
[...]
> On 2011-10-17 23:36, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > Assuming that this is true and confirmed, is the modification of
> > apt-listbugs (so that it uses -3 instead of -40 as Pin-Priority to
> > prevent the installation of a p
Hi Francesco,
On 2011-10-17 23:36, Francesco Poli wrote:
> However, cupt happily goes on and attempts to install derivations,
> until apt-listbugs kicks in and warns the user (again!) that there's a
> bug:
[...]
> If I recall correctly one conversation I had with you (Eugene) back on
> January 201
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:36:02PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:53:40 +0300 Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
>
> > On 2011-10-17 00:40, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > I still have to carefully read the rest of the your reply, but, first,
> > > I have to ask a question about this wo
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:53:40 +0300 Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> On 2011-10-17 00:40, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > I still have to carefully read the rest of the your reply, but, first,
> > I have to ask a question about this workaround: I am considering using
> > a Pin-Priority of -3 (which has t
On 2011-10-17 00:40, Francesco Poli wrote:
> I still have to carefully read the rest of the your reply, but, first,
> I have to ask a question about this workaround: I am considering using
> a Pin-Priority of -3 (which has the advantage of being
> representable as a 16-bit signed integer, just
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:12:43 +0300 Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
[...]
> On 2011-10-16 12:35, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Hi Eugene! :-)
> >
> > I can change the default Pin-Priority that apt-listbugs uses to prevent
> > the installation of any version of a package from -40 to -2 , if
> > this c
Hi,
On 2011-10-16 12:35, Francesco Poli wrote:
> Hi Eugene! :-)
>
> I can change the default Pin-Priority that apt-listbugs uses to prevent
> the installation of any version of a package from -40 to -2 , if
> this can work for most cases with Cupt...
> For Apt/Aptitude, any negative Pin-Pri
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 10:46:33 +0300 Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> On 2011-10-15 17:27, James Vega wrote:
> > Well, I currently don't have any libclutter-1.0-0 versions installed,
> > which is why the pin is for any version. Also, I tried changing the
> > Pin-Priority to -2000 and that didn't change
On 2011-10-15 17:27, James Vega wrote:
> Well, I currently don't have any libclutter-1.0-0 versions installed,
> which is why the pin is for any version. Also, I tried changing the
> Pin-Priority to -2000 and that didn't change the outcome any.
Even -2000 is too big for this case (using the curre
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 09:40:40PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> First and main of them is Cupt's resolver always consider all versions,
> which is considered a feature. I can add a feature to stop considering
> version with some priority less than X for installing, but -40 is still
> too "bi
tags 645412 + confirmed upstream
quit
Hi James, thank you for the report,
On 2011-10-15 11:21, James Vega wrote:
[...]
> $ cat /etc/apt/preferences
> Explanation: Pinned by apt-listbugs at Sat Oct 15 10:59:17 -0400 2011
> Explanation: #619636: empathy fails to start: failed to create drawable
>
18 matches
Mail list logo
