On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 04:31:46PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> In general, I disagree that we should declare a conflict at both
> sides of the conflict and that the package manager should be able
> to deal with a conflict on just one side. It's not a conflict that
> involves version numbers.
The i
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 04:00:58PM +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> Control: reassign -1 libssl-dev 1.1.0e-2
> Control: retitle -1 libssl-dev: declare conflict with libssl1.0-dev to help
> apt find solutions
[...]
> Not being installable is the problem of the package which isn't
> installable –
Control: reassign -1 libssl-dev 1.1.0e-2
Control: retitle -1 libssl-dev: declare conflict with libssl1.0-dev to help apt
find solutions
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 09:32:34AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Control: reassign -1 apt
> Control: retitle -1 apt does not find solutions that involve libssl1.0-
Control: reassign -1 apt
Control: retitle -1 apt does not find solutions that involve libssl1.0-dev ->
libssl-dev
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 09:16:30PM +0200, s3v wrote:
> Package: libecryptfs-dev
> Severity: grave
> Justification: renders package unusable
>
>
> Currently libecryptfs-dev is uninst
Package: libecryptfs-dev
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Currently libecryptfs-dev is uninstallable on Stretch.
This is the output when trying to install:
# apt-get install libecryptfs-dev
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information..
5 matches
Mail list logo
