Hi,
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 07:02:27PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> tags 677991 - moreinfo
> reassign 677991 python-apt
> forcemerge 677934 677991
> quit
I agree with the analysis by Touko Korpela. Thanks for your work to fix
it.
> In June, Touko Korpela wrote:
>
> > xz-lzma have reverse dep
tags 677991 - moreinfo
reassign 677991 python-apt
forcemerge 677934 677991
quit
Hi,
In June, Touko Korpela wrote:
> xz-lzma have reverse depends in archive that are now maybe broken
> python-apt (recommends)
> gdebi-core,reprepro (suggests)
python-apt: http://bugs.debian.org/677934
gdebi-core:
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Touko Korpela dixit:
>> xz-lzma have reverse depends in archive that are now maybe broken
>> python-apt (recommends)
>> gdebi-core,reprepro (suggests)
>
> These are no Depends…
Though maybe that is what Osamu ran into? If that's it, the fix will
be even simpler: change t
Touko Korpela dixit:
>xz-lzma have reverse depends in archive that are now maybe broken
>python-apt (recommends)
>gdebi-core,reprepro (suggests)
These are no Depends…
bye,
//mirabilos
--
13:37⎜«Natureshadow» Deep inside, I hate mirabilos. I mean, he's a good
guy. But he's always right! In every
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:20:58PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder dixit:
>
> >It seems like Osamu experienced an unsuccessful upgrade (tracking
> >sid), but I admit I'm hazy on the details.
>
> Hm. I’ve not experienced this on my systems (amd64 and m68k),
> tracking sid. (But the
severity 677991 normal
tags 677991 + moreinfo
quit
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Do we? Osamu describes the problem with 5.1.1alpha+20110809-3,
> not the current version.
It seems like Osamu experienced an unsuccessful upgrade (tracking
sid), but I admit I'm hazy on the details.
I'm hoping we will b
Jonathan Nieder dixit:
>It seems like Osamu experienced an unsuccessful upgrade (tracking
>sid), but I admit I'm hazy on the details.
Hm. I’ve not experienced this on my systems (amd64 and m68k),
tracking sid. (But then, I usually purge aptitude first thing.)
And, to be honest, I’d not care about
Jonathan Nieder dixit:
>So we would need another fix.
Do we? Osamu describes the problem with 5.1.1alpha+20110809-3,
not the current version.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
13:37⎜«Natureshadow» Deep inside, I hate mirabilos. I mean, he's a good
guy. But he's always right! In every fsckin' situation, he's
Hi Osamu,
Osamu Aoki wrote:
> When upgrading via aptitude, xz-utils upgrade is not smooth because of
> conflict with xz-lzma.
Can you please describe the symptoms (for example with a transcript)?
[...]
> |Breaks: lzma (<< 9.22-1), xz-lzma (<= 5.1.1alpha+20120614-1), lzip (<<
> 1.8~rc2)
> |Rep
Package: xz-utils
Version: 5.1.1alpha+20110809-3
Severity: wishlist
When upgrading via aptitude, xz-utils upgrade is not smooth because of
conflict with xz-lzma.
I see:
|Package: xz-utils
|Architecture: any
|Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}
|Multi-Arch: foreign
|Conflicts: lzma (<< 9.2
10 matches
Mail list logo
