On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 09:31:24PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 11/10/08 at 22:34 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote: [...]
Please note that I have almost no experience with SQL stuff. This
is just the basic idea and needs real improvements. (Would be a good
QA test, in my opinion).
[...]
Inde
On 11/10/08 at 22:34 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 05:30:10PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 28/09/08 at 15:06 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > On Sunday 28 September 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > > > Isn't this a bug of our upgrading tools, that should prefer to in
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 05:30:10PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 28/09/08 at 15:06 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > On Sunday 28 September 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > > Isn't this a bug of our upgrading tools, that should prefer to install
> > > a new, non-obsolete package A that Provides: B, rat
Hello, apt & aptitude people, could you perhaps take a quick look at
#498700 and comment? Thanks in advance.
* Frans Pop [Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:06:58 +0200]:
> On Sunday 28 September 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > Isn't this a bug of our upgrading tools, that should prefer to install
> > a new, non
On Sunday 28 September 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Frans, did you just run into this bug by luck, or did you specifically
> looked for such cases?
I'd say by accident rather than luck :-P
But I certainly did not go looking for it.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On 28/09/08 at 15:06 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 28 September 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > Isn't this a bug of our upgrading tools, that should prefer to install
> > a new, non-obsolete package A that Provides: B, rather than keeping a
> > no-longer-present-in-the-lists B installed?
>
>
On Sunday 28 September 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Isn't this a bug of our upgrading tools, that should prefer to install
> a new, non-obsolete package A that Provides: B, rather than keeping a
> no-longer-present-in-the-lists B installed?
Possibly. But as long as those tools don't support that i
* Frans Pop [Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:19:58 +0200]:
> Package: libdb-ruby1.8
> Version: 0.6.5-1
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Causes unclean upgrades
> I have dhelp installed on a Lenny system, which depends on
> libdb4.2-ruby1.8. After upgrading the system at some point I was left
> with libdb
Pushing.
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 12:22:28PM +0200, Michael Schutte wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 01:19:58PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > Package: libdb-ruby1.8
> > Version: 0.6.5-1
> > Severity: serious
> > Justification: Causes unclean upgrades
> >
> > I have dhelp installed on a Lenny system,
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 01:19:58PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Package: libdb-ruby1.8
> Version: 0.6.5-1
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Causes unclean upgrades
>
> I have dhelp installed on a Lenny system, which depends on
> libdb4.2-ruby1.8. After upgrading the system at some point I was left
The upgrade also caused the following error:
dpkg: libdb4.2-ruby1.8: dependency problems, but removing anyway as you
request:
dhelp depends on libdb4.2-ruby1.8.
(Reading database ... 152378 files and directories currently installed.)
Removing libdb4.2-ruby1.8 ...
Processing triggers for doc-base
Package: libdb-ruby1.8
Version: 0.6.5-1
Severity: serious
Justification: Causes unclean upgrades
I have dhelp installed on a Lenny system, which depends on
libdb4.2-ruby1.8. After upgrading the system at some point I was left
with libdb4.2-ruby1.8 still installed as "obsolete package".
At first I
12 matches
Mail list logo
