Am Montag, den 23.11.2020, 19:43 +0100 schrieb Ansgar:
> Michael Biebl writes:
>
>
> > > Maybe udev should have
> > > "Breaks: systemd (!= ${binary:Version})"? But I'm not sure if
> > > that
> > > might result in apt suggesting to remove udev instead.
> >
> > Shouldn't this be the other way aro
Michael Biebl writes:
> Am Montag, den 23.11.2020, 15:38 +0100 schrieb Ansgar:
> As mentioned in another MR [1], the imho most "elegant" way would be an
> artifical libsystemd0 dependency in udev.
Ah, yes, I remember you asked about something like this, but couldn't
find where :)
> Breaks and Con
Am Montag, den 23.11.2020, 15:38 +0100 schrieb Ansgar:
>
> I had installed systemd/247~rc2-2 from experimental, but kept udev at
> 246.6-2 (version currently in unstable) as it wasn't automatically
> upgraded.
>
> This combination made various things very unhappy (possibly due to
> the
> "bind" u
Package: udev
Version: 247~rc2-2
Severity: important
I had installed systemd/247~rc2-2 from experimental, but kept udev at
246.6-2 (version currently in unstable) as it wasn't automatically
upgraded.
This combination made various things very unhappy (possibly due to the
"bind" uevents mentioned i
4 matches
Mail list logo
